Lords Sitting of 31 January 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.
Lord Loch—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

Youth Training Scheme: Statistics
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the relative position between young males and young females in the youth training scheme in terms of numbers and in the type of training being undertaken.
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office, and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, of the 284,000 young people who had entered the youth training scheme by the end of November, 166,000 (or 58 per cent.) were male and 118,000 (or 42 per cent.) were female. More detailed information about the type of training being undertaken is not at present available.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply and welcome the fact that there is some monitoring of the numbers of male and female entrants to the YTS. However, in view of the Manpower Services Commission's research projects, the results of which were published in R and D series No. 11 by the MSC, would the noble Earl agree that it is necessary for positive steps to be taken to try to eradicate the traditional types of training that are offered to females as opposed to males? Secondly, would he also agree that a very useful first step in this direction might be for the publicity put out by the Manpower Services Commission on the YTS to take a more positive approach to the recruitment of girls for technical subjects? Some of the imbalance might then be removed.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, on the issue of publicity and recruitment, all general publicity and marketing material has been designed to make the scheme equally attractive to males and females. But through specific marketing material we are also trying to encourage young people to use the YTS as an introduction to types of work which they might have thought were closed to them because of the traditional attitudes to the role of men and women in jobs. To that degree I agree with what the noble Baroness has said. I must also point out that part of the imbalance is due to the fact—and the general evidence is to this effect—that young women have a slightly higher rate of taking up real employment than young men.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, when the noble Earl says that there is no information available about the types of training, does he mean that he has not asked for it? I simply cannot believe that it is not available because it is part of the Government's policy.
The Earl of Gowrie: No, my Lords, it does not mean that. It means that this supplementary and monitoring material is at present in the process of being gathered.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what we are to understand from the expression, "young females" in the Question, because lots of them consider themselves young at 55, 60 and even 65?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am very sorry that the noble Lord is not eligible for many of these admirable Government schemes; but I am sure that we can find something for him.

Public Record Office: Borrowing
2.40 p.m.
Lord Morris Lord Morris: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government by what statutory provision they are entitled to borrow temporarily or otherwise documents in the custody of the Public Record Office.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, Section 4 (6) of the Public Records Act 1958 permits the temporary return of public records in the Public Record Office to the department or office from which they were transferred.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that Answer. Where a Government department withdraws documents from the custody of the Public Record Office, may I ask him how one can possibly escape the conclusion that the department concerned might have something that it wishes to hide?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I cannot think how my noble friend can draw such a conclusion. It means that the department wants to use the documents.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord say how long these documents will be withheld from the Public Record Office? Is there not a danger that, by departments recovering documents from the Public Record Office and witholding them, they may be able to circumvent the 30-year rule? In the meantime, would it be possible for the Foreign Office to make arrangements for the documents now in its custody to be available to researchers and others who want to examine them?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Question related to the statutory provisions under which these

549
documents could be returned. The terms of the statute read as follows:
"Public records in the Public Record Office or other place of deposit appointed by the Lord Chancellor under this Act shall be temporarily returned at the request of the person by whom or department or office from which they were transferred".
There is nothing in the Question which related to the considerations which the noble and learned Lord has raised.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: With great respect, my Lords, may I just follow that? Do my questions nevertheless arise from, and relate to, the content of the original Question and the noble and learned Lord's reply?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is a question of opinion. But if the noble and learned Lord puts down a Question, no doubt the appropriate Minister of the Crown will answer it. I am myself unwilling again to traverse the ground which was so well traversed by my noble friend Lady Young a week or two ago.
Lord Byers: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will consider asking the appropriate department to have the documents photostated and copied, so that they can be made available to those who want to look at them?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sure that the appropriate department will note what the noble Lord has said. However, on 21st December, in a Written Answer, I was able to tell my noble kinsman the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that 17,500 documents had been returned to the departments under the provisions of the subsection in the year ending on, I think, 30th September last. So a good deal of photostating would be required.
Lord Byers: My Lords, with all respect to the noble and learned Lord, it is not a question of the number of documents totalling 17,500; it is the number that ought to be returned, and I cannot believe that that is in the thousands.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, all the documents have to be returned. The section provides for temporary return to the departments from which the documents had originally been obtained. As I read the word "temporary" it does not mean the same as the word "permanently".
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor aware that the whole House will have been glad to note in a recent Written Answer to myself his disapproval of the mutilation of, or deletions from, these documents? Will the noble and learned Lord follow up that disapproval with equal disapproval of their retention?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am always glad to have the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, rare as it is; but I think that my Written Answer referred not to documents returned to the originating department under Section 4(6), but to the delivery to the Public Record Office from the originating department in the first place. However, I am
550
delighted to bask in the sunshine of the noble Lord's approval.
Lord Walston: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord expand a little on his definition of "temporary"? He told us that it is not permanent. Will he give us a slightly narrower definition, and say how long in his opinion temporary should be?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am always the servant of Parliament, and on that interesting subject the Act is totally silent.

UK Airports: Surface Movement Radar
2.46 p.m.
Lord Braye: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the recent air disaster by collision on the ground at Madrid Airport, whether surface movement indicators (ground radar) could be installed at all our major airports excepting Heathrow (which is already so equipped); and, if so, when.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the Civil Aviation Authority is installing surface movement radar in the new control tower now under construction at Gatwick Airport. The equipment is expected to be in service in the autumn of this year. There are no plans at present to install surface movement radar at other airports.
Lord Braye: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for his very kind Answer. Is he aware that considerable sums of money have been spent on airports all over England, and that passenger safety must come first? Therefore, in view of the appalling accidents which have occurred abroad, could not somebody in the Government ask that all our major airports be equipped with this equipment?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, nobody regrets more than I do the accidents to which my noble friend has referred, but there are a number of different criteria which must be satisfied before we can justify the installation of the equipment. So far we, or more accurately the CAA, has been able to see its way clear to install the equipment only at the airport that I have mentioned.

Tourism: Statistics
2.48 p.m.
Baroness Sharples Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the total number of tourists to Britain in 1983, and how does this compare with the preceding three years.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, complete figures for the year 1983 are not yet available, but in the first 10 months of the year there were an estimated 11,113,000 overseas visitors to the United Kingdom. That is a 7 per cent. increase compared with the same period in 1982, and an increase of 10 per cent. compared with the same period in 1981. It is almost the same as the figure for the first 10 months of 1980.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging Answer. Can he give me any details of the percentage increase in, for example, American visitors? Can he also please say what plans there are for Heritage Year? May I also ask my noble friend whether he has visited the new premises in Victoria, and is he aware how extremely good, efficient and welcoming they are?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am afraid that I have not yet had an opportunity to visit the new premises which my noble friend tells me of. Perhaps she and I might make a joint trip there; I look forward to that. With regard to my noble friend's first point, about the increase in visits by people from North America, I am pleased to be able to tell her that in 1983 there was a 34 per cent. rise over 1982 in visits from North American citizens. My noble friend asked about the theme and the plans for 1984, which has been designated Heritage '84 by the British tourist industry. So far this theme has received enthusiastic support from the industry, and a wide range of events has been planned.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord can say whether he attributes the increase in the number of overseas visitors from North America entirely to the fall in the value of the pound against the dollar?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, not entirely; but that is no doubt one of the factors. Other factors might be the tremendous value that visitors from North America and, indeed, from all round the world, believe that they receive in this country, in this great city of ours and, for all we know, perhaps in the Palace of Westminster as well.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that if overseas visitors were exempted from paying value added tax on the services that they receive in this country, the figure of 11 million-odd would probably be greatly increased?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we are well aware of the various cases put to us by the tourist industry for more relief on hotel accommodation and facilities for visitors. We shall ensure that this is considered on appropriate occasions, all the more so thanks to the support of my noble friend.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, in giving the increase in tourists coming to this country, can my noble friend say whether there are figures to show the stream of British tourists in the other direction, and whether on balance there is an advantage in the foreign currency earned?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, there are statistics of British visitors going overseas. In the same period—the first 10 months of 1983–18,805,000 visits were made abroad by United Kingdom citizens. They spent £3,688 million. This was a deficit on tourism in the first 10 months of £433 million. I would stress that this is considerably less than the deficit on tourism in the first 10 months of 1982.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend say how many out of the figure of 11 million are language students? Can he give some indication of how many stay on to continue their studies and do not go back?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, if I can obtain these complicated statistics for my noble friend, I shall do so. However, I would have to say to him and to your Lordships that it may require considerable research. Indeed, we may have some difficulty in defining who is and who is not a language student, because that also goes for me.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Lord has been kind enough to give the figure showing the increase in visitors from the United States, which is significantly higher than the global figure that he gave. Can he say, for example, whether there has been an increase or a decrease in visitors to this country from European Community countries'?
Lord Lyell: My Lords. I think that I could do so, but not without due search among the statistics. If I may, I shall find these figures and write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the great delays at Terminal 3 of Heathrow Airport for those arriving from North America holding passports other than British passports? Does he realise that tourists go away rather unhappy about this?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw attention to the first impression that visitors to these shores gain at airports and other ports of entry. I am afraid that I am not able to give my noble friend a suitable answer today, but I shall inquire and write to her very swiftly.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, when a Minister is asked a question to which he feels he cannot do an immediate justice, would he consider, if the answer is likely to be more than of interest to his sole interlocutor, inviting a Question for Written Answer rather than promising to write a letter?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for this extremely good idea. I should like to consider it. I shall certainly see that the noble and learned Lord receives copies of the two written answers that I have promised to give today.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in view of the continuing, although reduced, deficit on tourist account, will the noble Lord indicate what measures have been taken to stimulate what one might call indigenous tourism?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the tourist industry itself is taking extremely vigorous measures, as I have pointed out to my noble friend Lady Sharpies. The main thrust for this year is Heritage '84. Most of the ideas for improving our earnings from tourism come from the vigorous tourist industry itself.

Business
2.56 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Gowrie will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement to be made in another place on vocational education and training.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time of 7.30. The Committee stage of the Roads (Scotland) Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for a short period.

Business of the House
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Baroness Ewart-Biggs and the Lord Pitt of Hampstead set down for 8th February shall each be limited to 2½ hours and that Standing Order 34 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates set out in Appendix D to the Companion to Standing Orders shall apply to each debate.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Dentists Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a straightforward consolidation Bill that seeks to consolidate the law relating to the General Dental Council and to the training, registration and disciplining of dentists and dental auxiliaries in the United Kingdom. The law on this subject was last consolidated in the Dentists Act 1957, but since 1957 it has been extensively amended as a result of the Dentists (Amendment) Act 1973 and the Dentists Act 1983. It has also been affected by a number of Instruments made under the European Communities Act 1972. In order to produce a satisfactory consolidation it is necessary to make the recommendation that is set out in the Law Commission Report on the Bill laid before this House on 17th January. If your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading, it will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, on behalf of the members of the dental profession, I should like formally to welcome this consolidation Bill. There was a long interval between the 1957 Act and the one in 1983. It is the practice every year to publish the Dentists Act as the first pages in the Dental Register,
554
which means that this legislation is readily available to members of the profession and is regularly referred to by them. In the present Dental Register, of course, both Acts will have to be published. This will make life rather complicated for many dentists. We are therefore—I believe that I speak on behalf of all the profession—very grateful that a consolidation Act is coming so swiftly, and it will be of enormous help to members of the profession in enabling them to study this law.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. In the light of our previous exchange at Question Time, I hope that this may be a little better than a temporary filling.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for extracting that information from the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Animal Health and Welfare Bill [H.L.]
2.59 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Seizure and disposal of things likely to spread disease]:
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) If finance is provided by the industry for an eradication programme then full consultation shall be carried out with the funding body before an addition is made to the list of materials the Minister is empowered to seize.")
The noble Lord said: Before dealing with the amendment I must declare my interest as a farmer. I keep stock of various kinds—for example, poultry and cattle. Indeed, it is becoming rather boring continually admitting one's interest. I put down this amendment because there are now at least two areas where the industry provides the finance for controlling particular diseases—Aujeszky's disease in pigs and Newcastle disease in poultry. If the Government continue this, what I would call, "privatisation", it may move to foot and mouth disease and a number of other diseases.
There is a case for more consultation with the funding body when power is given to remove carcases and so on if disease is present. This is simply to protect people who may not agree completely that a whole series of animals have to be removed and who may take the view that some carcases are perfectly safe because they may be kept in a different place, and that poultry kept in different parts of the farm need not be disturbed and so on. This is simply an amendment to

555
prevent that from happening and to have consultation with the funding body before the Minister puts down any new materials that might be seized. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: The amendment tabled by the noble Lord would introduce the requirement which the noble Lord has explained. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has made it quite clear that what he is after is full consultation taking place with a funding organisation before any item is added to the list of materials which the Minister is empowered to seize under subordinate legislation. I entirely take the point which the noble Lord made as regards the current examples of funding taking place from the industry in the case of Aujeszky's disease and Newcastle disease.
Having said that, I hope that the noble Lord will be content with the assurance which I am very ready to give him, because I do not think that the amendment would be appropriate in the Bill and I hope that the noble Lord would agree with me that it would not be necessary. There is only one other consultation provision in the Animal Health Act 1981 so far as seizure in disease situations is concerned, and that is the one which refers to wildlife and the concerns of the Nature Conservancy Council; it has nothing to do with financing.
The assurance that I would like to give is that it is axiomatic that, in the situation referred to by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, there must be a close and continuing consultation between the funding body and the Government. I can therefore certainly give an assurance that in the circumstances described there would be full consultation particularly in relation to the financial implications.
Lord John-Mackie: If there is one person I am glad to accept assurances from it is the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and because of that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I wish to raise a matter on Clause I which is linked with Clause 2 and it is a matter of which I have given the Minister notice. I recently received a letter from the Cotswolds Wildlife Preservation Society expressing fears that Clause 1, with the powers of entry prescribed in Clause 2, was an additional threat to badgers, giving additional powers to go in search of and to seize live badgers. I have not construed these clauses as doing that. I have taken advice on the matter from other sources and my own fears, if there were any, have been removed. However, if the Minister would be so kind as to make the position quite clear it would probably remove any misunderstanding. I only raise the matter on behalf of a society of this kind because their letter was closely argued, although I think it was mistaken in the conclusions that it reached.
As I see it, Clause 1 is an extension of the range of diseases for which a search can be made for products, materials or carcases which may be an additional risk to animals. Clause 2 provides powers of entry for that
556
purpose. I do not think that I need explain the case that has been put to me by the association because to dispose of their fears—which I am sure the Minister will be able to do—will be quite enough.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, did indeed give me notice that he would raise this point and I am very grateful to the noble Lord. If the noble Lord had not given me notice he might not have found that the explanation which I hope will now come from me made quite such good sense as I hope the noble Lord will think that it does.
My explanation is as follows. First, I can give an assurance to the noble Lord and, indeed, to those who expressed concern to him, that the powers in Clauses 1 and 2 do not affect badgers. The main disease concern in relation to badgers is of course tuberculosis and powers already exist for dealing with that disease. Moreover, the appropriate provisions for dealing with disease in wildlife are contained in Sections 21 and 22 of the Animal Health Act 1981.
However, the noble Lord asks me specifically about Clause 1. If one looks at the clause it specifically states that the clause:
"does not authorise provision for the seizure of any animal".
Hence, all animals, including badgers, are outside the scope of this provision. Section 28 of the Act enables orders to be made for the seizure of live animals, that is true, but the definition of "animals" in Section 87 does not include badgers. Therefore, the powers in Section 28 of the 1981 Act could only be exercised in relation to badgers if an order in the form of a statutory instrument under Section 87 were to be made. I would like to take the opportunity to say that there is no intention of doing that.
So far as Clause 2 is concerned, which provides for additional powers of entry to ascertain whether disease exists—which we have not quite reached—there an order would have to be made under Section 88 of the 1981 Act before the powers could be used in relation to tuberculosis. Indeed, under Clause 2 of the Bill the powers to enter land may only be exercised if animals are, or have been, kept on the land and it could not be argued that badgers which simply happen to be on the land are kept there. I hope that the assurances about those two clauses satisfy the noble Lord.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Extension of scope of 1967 Act]:
3.9 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 22, after ("with") insert ("the Farm Animal Welfare Council and").
The noble Lord said: This is a small point, but it is important. The Farm Animal Welfare Council was reconstituted in 1980 and it was given pretty wide terms of reference. It is a body of substance whose work and advice must be greatly valued by the

557
Government, as it is by many bodies outside. If we look at Clause 4 we find that in subsection (2B) provision is made for the Minister to consult because at line 22 it says:
"The Ministers may, after consultation with such persons or bodies as seem to them representative of the interests concerned"—
and so on.
Nowhere in the Bill is the existence of the Farm Animal Welfare Council mentioned. It seems to me that, if the Government have a council of this standing—and this is important from the point of view of advice given—it is not unsuitable for some reference to be made to its existence when provision is made for consultations. If the advice given by the Farm Animal Welfare Council was given to the Government in private, that, of course, would constitute part of the machinery for advice to the Government in formulating their own policies. But when the reports of a body of this kind are published—as they are—it seems to me that the consultations which are to take place should include a reference to them.
I know that it can be argued that the Farm Animal Welfare Council is helping the Government to make up their mind, and that when the Government listen to the council and make up their mind, that is the point when consultation should take place with the interests concerned. That is to say, the consultation is in two stages: first, the advice that is given to the Government; and, secondly, the Government, having considered that advice and having some idea of what they want to do, then going to the various interests concerned and listening to what they have to say. I think that that is plausible enough. However, as the consultative process cannot be entirely separated in stages like this, it is desirable for this council to be mentioned.
In conclusion, bodies which are appointed by governments in an advisory capacity—for example, committees and commissions—carry out a great deal of work in the public interest, much of it very unpleasant indeed. Who wants to go round slaughter houses to the extent that the Farm Animal Welfare Council has in the course of its investigation into conditions of slaughter, and whose report on that matter is expected before very long? But in connection with the contents of this Bill and the clause dealing with poultry, the council had to go round the establishments where poultry is brought in for slaughter, slaughtered and sent out again, and had to inspect very squalid conditions under which poultry was kept before it was despatched, and so forth. All that work is done for nothing, apart from a limited allowance for expenses. It is work done in the public interest. The least one can do to reward members of the council for what they undertake is to recognise what they are doing, even if one does not accept the recommendations which the council makes.
Speaking from personal experience, I cannot help but be deeply resentful that I have been so ill-rewarded by successive governments for all the time I have spent carrying out investigations as a member of various committees and commissions. I shall not make a deeper accusation in this connection, which would be similar to the one I would make if we were talking about a Royal Commission. That, I think, is a real con job; there is no doubt at all about that.
A council of this kind is a continuing and advisory body. Therefore, I hope that the fervour with which I advocate the mentioning of the Farm Animal Welfare Council will be taken to represent my own feelings on the situation. Therefore, I move the amendment with the hope that the Minister will not start a fairly long session on a fairly lengthy sequence of amendments in my name by turning down this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord John-Mackie: I should like to support my noble friend. The fervour with which he advanced his argument does not require anything further from me. From looking at the Bill, I do not think that the amendment would do any harm at all. In fact, it might do much good.
Lord Belstead: Clause 4 enables the Government to approve by statutory instrument special methods of slaughter for day-old chicks, but after consultation with representative interests. First, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that, given its terms of reference, clearly the Farm Animal Welfare Council should be consulted, must be consulted and would have to be consulted. Indeed, I should have thought that Ministers would be in default of their statutory obligation to consult representative interests if the council were to be omitted.
I would add that, as I think was recognised in the debate on Second Reading by many noble Lords, many of the provisions in this Bill stem directly from the recommendations made by the council. Indeed, there is a very substantial amendment, which I think comes at the end of the noble Lord's list of amendments, which stems absolutely from the Welfare of Poultry Awaiting Slaughter Report, which was brought forward by the Farm Animal Welfare Council. It would be unthinkable to omit the council from any such consultation procedures, and I can assure the Committee that we would not do so.
However, I must add that, if we specifically mention the Farm Animal Welfare Council, I think it would be very difficult logically not to include mention of other welfare organisations which have an interest. Of course, I recognise that the Farm Animal Welfare Council does important work as the Government's adviser on farm animal welfare. I recognise the view of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that the council might appropriately be mentioned in this statute. But for the reason which I have just given, from a drafting point of view I do not think that this amendment will quite do.
The noble Lord is not only very experienced in these matters, but I think he is also an experienced and ingenious parliamentarian. If he could bring back an amendment suitable from a drafting point of view, I know that the Government would try to look at it sympathetically. But I repeat, if one makes specific mention of the council in this respect, despite the fact that the council has a special place in the life of farm animal welfare, it would be very difficult not to include specifically the other very important bodies which will have to be consulted under Clause 4.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I suppose that anybody on these Benches has difficulty over Clause 4!

559
However, that is a very disappointing reply; nor is it a convincing one. What are these other bodies which would have to be mentioned? The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the British Poultry Federation, and others of that kind?
Lord Somers: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, there is the Council of Justice to Animals and the Humane Slaughter Association, of which I am the president.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Of course, one can go to the directory and read them all out, but they are not relevant to the point that I am about to make. This is a Government-appointed council; it is not a welfare body in the sense that other bodies may claim to be welfare bodies; it is not a prevention of cruelty body or a safeguarding the interests of particular species body. Nor is the Farm Animal Welfare Council representative of a trade interest. There are plenty of trade interests around that will have to be consulted—will they not? They will have plenty of time to consider where their interests lie in anything that the Government may do. I am not talking of them. They are "the interests" and are referred to:
"as seem to them representative of the interests concerned".
They can be any interests concerned—all of them. But I am dealing with the Government's own appointed advisory council. Cannot the Government give the council some standing, some mention or some acknowledgment? This is what I am complaining about. Let us look at the list of members of the Farm Animal Welfare Council. They are a distinguished body of people, many of them highly professional, all of them having a busy life, and yet they meet together to pore over the scandals and the squalid conditions to which the committee referred in its report and with which this Bill is attempting, in some measure, to deal.
The noble Lord cannot get away with a suggestion that so much of the report of the Farm Animal Welfare Council is reflected in this Bill that the Bill itself is their monument, their vote of thanks, their testimonial. Only two recommendations out of 37 are included in this Bill. All the others are left for further research, or for regulations, or for codes of practice—all the amorphous array of attempts to surround problems of this kind with suitable guidelines and disciplines. This is not good enough. I am surprised that the Minister has started off with such a disappointing and weak defence.
I do not know what he is suggesting that I should do. There is nothing I can think of which is going to satisfy the purpose of this amendment unless the Farm Animal Welfare Council is mentioned. I do not think that an amendment which says, "The Government shall consult with such bodies as they may think fit, including you know who", will do. Either the name is mentioned or the whole point of it is lost. That is my attitude towards this. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord can consider this matter again, otherwise we are going to make slow progress this afternoon. I sincerely hope that we can get on with points of greater substance.
I am not the self-appointed representative of the Farm Animal Welfare Council. I have not been asked
560
to do this by anybody. I just think it is rightful to do it, and I think it should he done. I hope that the noble Lord can think again.
Lord John-Mackie: The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, must agree that my noble friend has a real point here. I cannot understand why he thinks there is any drafting difficulty. All we have to do is to insert the name of the body and then just, "and such other persons and bodies". That is simple. It is a Government-appointed body. If the rest protest that they are not mentioned, they can be told, "You are not Government-appointed bodies, and we had to state our body which we asked to advise us." I cannot see that there is any difficulty with the drafting at all.
Lord Belstead: Perhaps I should underline the difficulty without going all over the ground I have gone over before. As I have said twice, although the Farm Animal Welfare Council has a special place in the business of farm animal welfare, being the Government's adviser on these matters, the council is not a statutory body. For that reason, I think that the Government would find difficulty in picking out special mention in this way in this particular place in this statute for the Farm Animal Welfare Council, and not mentioning bodies representing the poultry industry, the farmers' unions, other welfare bodies, the veterinary profession and religious organisations, just to list some organisations. Indeed, one specific one in which the noble Lord has an interest as president was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Somers.
That is the difficulty from a drafting point of view. In no way am I belittling on behalf of the Government the work which the Farm Animal Welfare Council does, but I say that it would be inappropriate specifically to mention it while not mentioning any of the other bodies, when what we are talking about and are concerned with here is that there should be wide consultation. I am sure that that is what we all want. This would be questioned if we drafted in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is inviting me to draft. Therefore, although I gave the noble Lord an invitation to be as ingenious as possible and to try to come back with an alternative, I am afraid that I am not going to come back with an alternative.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: The noble Lord is making it worse. He now says it is not a statutory body, so he begins to run it down. The fact that it is not a statutory body is immaterial. It is the advisory body on the welfare of farm animals appointed by the Government, and the only one of its kind in relation to this Bill. Surely that gives it a status which is not enjoyed by any voluntary body or other pressure group that may be consulted, and properly consulted, when matters are under consideration. This is the primary advisory body of the Government so constituted, and strengthened by this Government to make it a stronger force in the chain of consultation and formulation of policy than the old committee. Therefore, surely it has a place in a Bill of this kind.
The Advisory Committee on Animal Experiments appointed by the Home Secretary is not a statutory committee. But is the Minister trying to tell us—he has been at the Home Office—that, when we update the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, we shall get a whole new

561
Bill without any reference to the Advisory Committee on Animal Experiments? Again it is a committee of similar status to the Farm Animal Welfare Council which has the right to publish its own reports and has the claim to be consulted by the Minister on matters within its terms of reference. Indeed, in any updating legislation in that context, it will be essential to refer to the advisory committee because it will have a part in the administration of the Act. Therefore, it will have to be referred to.
The Minister is just playing about with this. The Government have enough real difficulties about the reforms that this Bill is attempting to make without making unnecessary trouble for themselves over the recognition of their own self-appointed, strengthened, reorientated Farm Animal Welfare Council. This is what is wrong with this Government. They take big and silly decisions in other contexts, but apparently they cannot come to a conclusion on something which is quite harmless but has a degree of gratitude in it for a committee they appointed to do a job of work.
I would not serve on the Farm Animal Welfare Council after listening to the Minister's suggestion that they have no more right to be consulted, and no more right to he mentioned in the Act, than "chickens' lib". I cannot take it. I hope that we are not going to reach deadlock on a matter of this kind, because it will come up again shortly in another amendment. Are we going over it all again?
Lord Belstead: I think we shall go over it all again because I think I shall give the same reply to the noble Lord as I have given now.
On Question, amendment negatived.
3.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Clause 4 removes from the 1967 Act in Section 1(1) the words,
"for purposes of preparation for sale for human consumption";
so that the present Bill applies to the slaughter of birds whether or not for the purposes of sale for human consumption. Then, for the sake of clarity, there are certain exemptions which are mentioned. But the principal Act is still the 1967 Act which refers to "commercial purposes". Schedule 1, paragraph 7(3) on page 17 appears to confirm that the Bill applies only to birds slaughtered for commercial purposes, because it defines the meaning of those words,
"in the course or furtherance of a business or for reward".
Then it defines what a commercial enterprise is.
What I do not understand is the relevance in the circumstances to the exemptions in Clause 4(2)(a), (b) and (c). The exemptions are that the section shall not apply to the slaughter of any bird,
"in pursuance of powers conferred by, or by any instrument made or having effect as if made under, the Animal Health Act 1981".
We understand what that is. It is where slaughter takes place in an emergency, such as with foot and mouth disease or other highly contagious or infectious diseases, where slaughter has to take place straightaway. I should not have thought that such slaughter came under this category at all.
562
The next exemption is:
"in the course of an experiment".
Under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 animals are not slaughtered for a commercial purpose; they are destroyed following experiments authorised by licence under the Act of 1876.
Thirdly, an exemption is given to,
"a person registered in the register of veterinary surgeons",
who may be destroying an animal in the course of the exercise of his profession. There is nothing mischievous either about the exemptions or about what I am saying. All I wonder is why these exemptions were put in Clause 4 when they seem to be quite irrelevant to the purposes of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister could throw some light on that.
As that finishes that point, I do not know whether to go on. I have several points to raise on clause stand part. It may help if I deal with them one at a time. All I want to ask on this is, what is the relevance of lines 10 to 21 on page 3? They are all exemptions, yet none of them appears to be concerned with the purposes of Clause 4?
Lord Belstead: These exemptions are being put on the face of the statute for the first time, but they relate, as the noble Lord has explained to the Committee, to provisions which already exist under, or by virtue of, the provisions of the Animal Health Act 1981; that is to say, slaughter for the purposes of disease control which takes place under the supervision of a Ministry of Agriculture veterinary officer. That is the first of the exemptions which the noble Lord read. This type of slaughter generally takes place on farms where the birds are protected by Part I of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, which prohibits the cause of unnecessary pain or distress to livestock on agricultural land. For that reason it seemed right to us to put in the first of these exemptions.
The second one the noble Lord dealt with, and he knows the whole scene so much better than myself that I would simply say in brief that in the course of experiments—subject to the restrictions under the 1876 Cruelty to Animals Act, and provided the restrictions are complied with—there should, as we see it, be the exemption written into paragraph (b). The third exemption is where a qualified veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner in the exercise of his profession or an assistant working under his direction, would consider the destruction of a bird or birds necessary—including the destruction of pet birds or a flock in circumstances where the owner could no longer exercise proper care over them. That would be a situation for which we believe there should be an exemption written in. That is the reason for paragraph (c).
The Earl of Selkirk: What does the word "Ministers" mean exactly? Does it include Secretaries of State? What Ministers in particular, one or two Ministers, or which Ministers does it refer to?
Lord Belstead: My first reaction to the noble Earl was that it was the plural of "Minister", but that gives me the opportunity to look at page 16 of the Bill. If my

563
noble friend would care to look at line 3 on page 16 there is the definition of "Ministers" as having,
"the same meaning as in that Act."
I am looking for the Act. I believe it is the Slaughter of Poultry Act 1967. If I am wrong about that I shall put myself right before we go much further. I think we are about to have a Statement, but before we break for the Statement may I repeat that, for once, I think I am quite right.
The Earl of Selkirk: I take it that that means the Secretary of State for Scotland?
Lord Belstead: I was rather afraid that the noble Earl might ask that question. I must be absolutely honest; I do not know whether the 1967 Act relates to Scotland. That question I should like to answer for my noble friend after we have broken for the Statement. Will my noble friend forgive me?
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): The Question is, that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: No, I thought we were about to have a Statement?
Lord Skelmersdale: If the Committee would forgive me, it is normal practice not to break into discussions of this nature until an appropriate moment when the subject has been cleared up, which, quite self-evidently, has not yet occurred. Thus, we will not be breaking for the Statement until after we resolve whether or not the clause stand part.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am very much obliged. I am sorry to delay the Statement but I still have quite a lot on Clause 4 yet. I accept the Minister's explanation of why the exemptions were included in the Bill. They are there, as I understand, as the longest of long stops against any dubiety arising in certain extreme, remote or almost impossible circumstances, so that it is just a waste of print and it does not really matter. In those circumstances there is no point in spending further time on it.
I wish to come to a more material point which is in lines 25 and 26. Although I alluded in speaking on Second Reading to what is commonly referred to as "ritual slaughter", I have no intention of pursuing that general issue in further stages of this Bill. As the noble Lord himself pointed out in reply on Second Reading, the Farm Animal Welfare Council are reaching the end of their study of methods of slaughter and slaughterhouse conditions, and we are likely to receive two reports from the Farm Animal Welfare Council within the next few months—one on slaughter generally and the other, a little later, on so-called ritual slaughter. While those reports are pending, I shall not waste the time of the Committee in pursuing any matter related to that subject, but the Bill deals specifically in subsection (2B) halfway down page 3 with a method of slaughter of poultry chicks.
The Farm Animal Welfare Council referred in their report to this matter. They said in paragraph 4 of their report:
"We have not included in our inquiry the sale of day-old chicks. We intend to examine this aspect of the slaughter of poultry at a later date."
564
Whether that will be included in the further report they still have to make, I do not know, but subsection (2B) gives the Ministers, after consultation with all and sundry, the power to approve a method of slaughter
"as a method suitable for the slaughter of poultry chicks".
I do not know who the method is suitable for, but it is a suitable method of slaughter. It is to ensure that they are slaughtered without the infliction of unnecessary suffering by any methods so approved. It seems to me that the deepest consideration should be given to this matter. What I hear about the methods employed at the present time is pretty horrifying.
I referred in my speech on Second Reading to the fact that day-old chicks are disposed of as if they were mashed potatoes. That is known as the "crushing system". How they are crushed, with what and what mess they are in at the end of it, I would not know. However, where they go then is known. They go, when they are so crushed, to mink and fox farms. They are then food for animals kept in captivity for their fur; and I shall have something to say later on about the destination of the crushed chicks.
As to the other methods, I believe that gassing has been used; but possibly gassing makes the ensuing carcases unsuitable for disposal in the way I have described. I think therefore it is going to be of considerable importance as to what methods the Ministers come forward with. I hope and believe that the opportunity to discuss what they recommend will be given to us because they will be by regulation.
I will now go on to the question of small slaughterers. I believe this is the subject of an amendment by my noble friend Lord John-Mackie. The interest I have in this is what was referred to in the report of the Farm Animal Welfare Council and to which, again, I referred on Second Reading: that is the squalid conditions that they found which are referred to in paragraph 56 of their report. They say:
"At businesses we visited where slaughter was carried out by the Moslem method for the food of Moslems the birds were kept on the premises and slaughtered in the most squalid conditions. Nothing can apparently be done about it by the authorities and the birds are sold to the customer live and slaughtered for him immediately afterwards."
The Minister said on Second Reading, without reference to the method of slaughter, that the conditions under which the birds are kept prior to slaughter, albeit by the Moslem method, will be subject to the regulations and conditions laid down under this Bill. That I hope can be firmly understood: that quite apart from the methods of slaughter the conditions under which they are kept prior to slaughter will come within the conditions and regulations of this Bill. That is all I need to trouble the Minister with at the moment, and I hope to get his reply on those two points.
Lord Belstead: First of all, in his absence, I apologise to my noble friend Lord Selkirk for not having been able to say earlier that the word "Ministers" in this Bill does indeed relate to the Secretary of State for Scotland and also the Secretary of State for Wales.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, on the question of day-old chicks, as the noble Lord implied, the Farm Animal Welfare Council are studying this matter and have not yet reached final conclusions. We

565
shall, of course, take account of anything which the council may say before approving slaughter methods for chicks. That is why we have been unable to include chicks in the Bill now in that way, but have had to make provision for orders later on after the Farm Animal Welfare Council have given their advice.
The noble Lord finally referred to the question of birds kept for ritual slaughter. He was good enough to refer to what I said on Second Reading, and indeed I would repeat that the amendment in Clause 4 will enable us to make regulations on birds sold live and then slaughtered. To this extent the Bill will therefore apply to ritual slaughter.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale: I hope the Committee will now agree that this is an appropriate moment to go on to the Statement. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Vocational Education and Training
3.47 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, with the leave of the House. I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The Statement is as follows:
"The Government are today publishing a White Paper Training for Jobs. This is presented jointly by my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science, for Scotland and Wales and myself. Copies are available in the Printed Paper Office".
:A well-trained workforce is essential to a strong economy and to win back jobs; to achieve this, vocational education and training must be properly directed to the demands of the market place."
"Two years ago we published our first White Paper on Training. At that time we set out three objectives: first, to improve vocational education and the transition from school to work; second, to modernise apprenticeship and other skill training; and, third, to open up wider training opportunities for adults."
"Since then we have made considerable progress. Already more than 300,000 young people have entered the youth training scheme. Our new initiative in co-ordinated technical and vocational education for young people between 14 to 18 was launched last September. Fourteen local education authorities co-operated in pilot schemes and a further 46 have now been invited to join the scheme, starting in September."
"In the reform of apprenticeship arrangements important improvements have been made in engineering, electrical contracting, printing and the construction industries. The open tech programme is now well under way, with as many as 50,000 people expected to take advantage of this new facility next year."
566
"These specific new initiatives represent a major achievement by the Manpower Services Commission under the energetic leadership of its chairman, David Young, and his fellow commissioners. But they would be the first to acknowledge the part played by employers, trade unions, local authorities, voluntary organisations, colleges, schools and the careers service and the support and interest of many honourable Members of this House, to which I readily pay tribute."
"The White Paper also sets out the criteria against which we shall make our future plans, and announces certain specific proposals. Central and local government have an important part to play, in vocational education and training. But real success depends crucially on the part played by employers and trainees themselves. The decisions as to who is trained, when and in what skills, are best taken by employers (and indeed the individuals concerned) who know better where the real needs are. So investment in training must be cost-effective, flexible, adaptable to changing technology and free of old-fashioned restrictions."
"I now turn to adult training, The Manpower Services Commission recently submitted to me proposals for a new adult training strategy. We fully support the commission's call for a national campaign to raise awareness, amongst employers and all concerned, of the vital importance of training. We support, too, the need to provide wider opportunities for the training of adults to meet new skill requirements. We therefore endorse the commission's proposals to restructure their existing programmes to double the total number of adults trained under MSC courses to over 250,000 a year. This will include a significant increase to some 125,000 in the number of unemployed receiving training."
"The Government have agreed to consider further two proposals by the commission. The first of these is that there should be some training included for people on community programmes. The second of these is that some adult trainees could be helped by a guaranteed loan scheme to enable them to obtain training not otherwise available to them. The Government recognise that this could well be of interest to a number of people, and I confirm that we shall be ready to consider it further with the MSC and others concerned"
"The White Paper also announces important new arrangements within vocational education. It is vital to get the closest possible collaboration at local level between employers, local education authorities and colleges, and other providers of vocational education and training, in identifying and meeting the real needs for future employment in their areas. The Manpower Services Commission, which includes representatives from industry as well as local authorities and professional educational interests, and which has an established local network, is well placed to assist in this role."
"The Government have therefore decided to ask the commission to extend its range of operations so that it can discharge the functions of a national training authority. We propose to increase the

567
commission's resources devoted to work-related non-advanced further education in England and Wales from some £90 million now to some £155 million in 1985–86 and £200 million in 1986–87. It will then represent about one-quarter of the total public sector provision for this area. The resultant reduction in the need for local authority expenditure will be taken into account in settling the relevant rate support grants for those future years. The commission is being asked to begin consultations immediately with educational interests, employers and other interested parties so that plans can be settled in good time for the beginning of the 1985–86 academic year."
"In 1983–84 we expect to spend £960 million on training. In 1984–85 we plan to increase this to £1,100 million. This is in addition to the £2½ billion spent by employers, and the substantial sums within the further education sector. It is vital to ensure that these funds are all used to the best possible effect. This White Paper sets out the Government's continuing programme to ensure that as a nation we are properly trained to meet the challenges of the years ahead."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl the Minister for repeating the Statement that has been made in another place. May I ask him, bearing in mind the very substantial changes proposed in this White Paper, whether it would not have been better for the Government first to issue a Green Paper to allow the fullest consultations to take place with all the people concerned? May I also ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that the fullest consultations have taken place? I ask that because the Statement refers to such bodies as the TUC, and my information at the moment is that production of this document has come as rather a surprise to some of the people involved in it.
May I ask the Minister, further, what is meant by the statement that loans are to be made available to adults under this scheme? I predict, because of the present economic circumstances, that unless those loans are made on very favourable terms there will be very little take-up of that scheme. May I also ask whether the noble Earl can enlarge further on the question of the additional finance for this scheme? Is it to be found by the Government, or is the scheme to be funded totally, or in part, by a clawback from the rate support grant to local authorities, with some of the adverse effects which that will have on those authorities if it is carried out?
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we on these Benches should also like to thank the noble Earl for repeating that important Statement. It is a Statement on training, but it has important effects on education as well. We are certainly not against central Government initiatives in the national interest, but we have some quite serious reservations about the constant whittling away of local education authority funds for Government-favoured projects in schools; and we also share to some extent the concern of the noble Lord,
568
Lord Dean, about the question of the consultation process.
There are two or three specific questions that I should like to ask the noble Earl. The announcement of the impending creation of the national training authority is obviously of the greatest importance. Can the noble Earl tell us a little more about the intended composition of this body? Will it simply be restricted to the existing MSC, or will other interests be brought in from outside? The question of consultation has also been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dean. May I ask the noble Earl whether, now that the White Paper has been published, and before full implementation, all interested bodies and parties will be brought into the discussion?
The Statement refers to a significant increase to some 125,000 in the number of unemployed adults receiving training. Can the noble Earl tell us what income maintenance arrangements are contemplated for them? Will they simply continue to receive unemployment benefit, or how will that be done? In conclusion, can the noble Earl let us know who will qualify for the guaranteed loan scheme? Will that be simply for the employed, or for the unemployed? This is an extremely important Statement and I hope that later, through the normal channels, we shall be able to arrange for a full-scale debate upon it.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords. In respect of the question about consultations put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, from the Opposition Front Bench, which was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, this is of course a White Paper and, in itself, will be debated and the subject of consultation. But further than that, the MSC will undertake immediate consultations with local authority associations, with employers' representatives, with representatives of further education colleges, with unions (especially those with members teaching in colleges) and with examining and validating bodies. These consultations will be about all aspects of the initiative, with particular reference to the subject areas and levels to be supported and the appropriate machinery for implementing the initiative. The commission will probably have to have arrangements in place to allow negotiations with local education authorities and colleges, so that they can plan their programmes and budgets in good time for next year. We have to get on with this, and this is, perhaps, why we have issued this in the form of a White Paper rather than a Green Paper.
On the point of guaranteed loans for forms of training, this would apply only to adult training. It has not yet been decided upon by the Government. It is a suggestion which has been put to them by the Manpower Services Commission, and we shall be examining it closely.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, asked me about finance. Broadly speaking, this should be neutral in its overall effects, as planned local government expenditure will be reduced by £110 million and Manpower Services Commission expenditure increased accordingly. However, I should like to make two points. First, local authorities and the other interest groups concerned are represented on the Manpower Services Commission. Secondly, this is

569
only a development of a process which has been taking place for some time, because the Manpower Services Commission is by far the largest single customer for local authority training courses. It will be of help to local authorities, and certainly to the young people and adults involved, that a nationally-based organisation which is more closely in touch with employers as well as with movements in the labour market than local authorities can be individually will have this role. I would expect support on that score.
I have tried to deal with the point about consultation made to me by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. Again I would repeat to him that the Manpower Services Commission contains representation from many other interests than the ones I mentioned. On the issue of the allowances paid to adult trainees, my understanding is that these should be competitive with or slightly better than existing rates of benefit. But I should like, if I may, to check that point.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, could he comment on the national training authority and say whether it will consist simply of existing members of the Manpower Services Commission or whether there will be some amplification of it to cover the various interests?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, there is a passage in the Statement which states that through this initiative the Manpower Services Commission is to become a national training authority.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I wonder whether I could press the noble Earl a little further on that point. The White Paper refers to the fact that the Department of Education and Science will be involved in appointments to the Manpower Services Commission, presumably in view of the growing role of the Manpower Services Commission in the provision of education and training. Does this mean that the Manpower Services Commission will remain as at present constituted, with nine members? If it is to assume the very important function of a national training body, with which I am not quarrelling because it is necessary to have a national strategy for training, to whom will it be accountable?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the role of the Department of Education and Science is that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be fully involved in considering and approving the Manpower Services Commission's corporate plan and in proposals relating to non-advanced further education and this kind of training. He will also be responsible for consultations on appointments to the commission to represent professional, education and local authority interests in England and Wales. In terms of the accountability of the Manpower Services Commission to Parliament, that will remain, as at present, the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I agree with the principle underlying the White Paper, but we shall have to study it in a little more detail. Could the noble Earl supply us with details of the 15 authorities which have been conducting a pilot study? Could he also
570
name in due course the 43 authorities which have been continuing the pilot study since September?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, my understanding is that the pilot studies have been relevant to the proposals which the Government are now putting forward.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, bearing in mind that this is Women's Engineering, Industry and Science Year—I see that some Ministers did not even know this, so I am happy to give them this piece of information—will it be the policy of Her Majesty's Government, through any body which is created, or through any existing body, to encourage more girls to enter the spheres of engineering, industry and science?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, as I suggested to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, at an earlier stage of this afternoon's proceedings, the Manpower Services Commission is thoroughly interested in widening the range of work and training provision that is available for young women and in trying to get young women interested in non-traditional skills. A national initiative and network for training of this kind will promote this objective.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, if I may take up the noble Earl's remark that there is no additionality in the funding referred to in this Statement—that it is a straight switch of £110 million from the local education authority account to the Manpower Services Commission's account—is it not a pity that these important initiatives have not received a little more pump priming from the Government?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, it is always wishful thinking that pump priming in one area can be achieved without the well getting a little drier in another area; otherwise, one would be adding to public spending, taxes and interest rates and reducing the number of employment opportunities that would be available thereby. This is a sensible use of existing overall resources. As I said earlier, it is not a very great change in principle because in this area the Manpower Services Commission is overwhelmingly the largest customer where local authorities are concerned.

Animal Health and Welfare Bill [H.L.]
4.7 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 5 [Licences]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 6, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: I shall confine myself for the moment to Amendment No. 3. There is nothing new about a debate on whether the word shall be "may" or "shall", but I submit to the Committee that in this particular regard the word "shall" is more suitable than the word "may". Those of us who have been in Government know about all the devices of Ministers,

571
and of the Civil Service behind them, to provide the utmost safeguard against a commitment that they do not want to make, or against tying them down to something that they do not want to do, or even against compelling them to think about something that they do not want to think about. It is an astonishing network of protection for the human spirit of Ministers of the Crown.
There is not the slightest doubt that not only on this but on the previous amendment, which I made such a fuss about, the advisers of the Minister said, "Look, Minister, if you do this some people will say that if you mention them you will have to mention these". This tiresome discouragement of ministerial adventure is the most frustrating part of public administration. The Minister, to start off with, says, "What is wrong with this?" The reply comes back, "Ah, Minister, but you have got to think of the repercussions. If you give way on this, look at this amendment later on; you will have to give way on that. If you mention Sloggins in one clause you will have to mention Boggins in another. Your life will be made hell. You will be asked why you have mentioned one while you have omitted to mention the other". The whole thing is absolute rubbish from beginning to end; but you cannot escape from it.
When I was in the House of Commons, I used to be in possession (by means I will not disclose) of the brief by the Board of Inland Revenue to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Finance Bill. It was wonderful—it really was wonderful! At the end of a long and tortuous argument, the brief, which frightened the Minister out of his wits in case he gave way when he should not do so, concluded with the simple formula, "Presumably the amendment will be resisted". They were content that the Minister should take that instruction in, whatever he thought of what went before.
When we come to the granting of licences and the conditions of granting licences to slaughter poultry and allied birds, it is not a question of "may"; it is a question of "shall". In the red meat industry all slaughtermongers have to be licensed. They have to be given proper training. Even then, although every precaution is taken, accidents can occur and dreadful things can happen. One is dealing with live animals and situations in which apparatus may fail or lights may go out, or where other untoward factors may not prevent some very distressing incidents arising.
Clause 5(1B) states:
"Accordingly, the regulations may include such provision as appears to the Ministers to be expedient for maintaining a licensing system"—
et cetera, et cetera. It then goes on to enlarge, although not as extensively as I believe it should do, on the conditions which may be made precedent to the granting of a licence. Can there be any question or doubt as to what should be done and what must be done? This is another example of how matters begin in a small way. Industries grow and capital equipment is installed, and then enormous commercial interests are built up right across the country. Public appetite for a particular form of food is advertised and promoted all over the place. When that stage is reached, and when scandals and discontents surrounding what is
572
happening are pressed upon the Government, you find that you have no safeguards against amateurish work being undertaken in the poultry slaughterhouses of this country. Red meat has one safeguard; they are animals. Poultry does not; they are birds.
I said on Second Reading that due to some curious twist of human temperament or psychology, animals arouse much greater sympathy than birds—probably because animals are nearer to the human species than are birds. I do not believe that one can minimise suffering among birds on the ground that they are small or that they are stupid. After all, stupidity has nothing to do with cruelty. We are not all blessed with the equipment we ought to have, but that does not mean that we can be ill-treated, because we are stupid; otherwise, many human beings would undergo some most distressing experiences. So let us be generous about the chicks. As I said before, there is no more ill-treated species in the country than the domestic fowl. It really is dreadful what we do to it, and poultry is more a stable food now than it has been ever before.
After all that, can the noble Lord the Minister bring himself to say that it shall be "shall", or do we have to endure another of those experiences which are so frustrating in your Lordships' House? It is rare to get a Minister on the Government Front Bench who can say, "Having listened to the debate, I agree". Apparently he does not have the authority to do that. He has a brief stuck in front of him to which he must adhere with no bending, no concession and no responsibility. The brief has come from the department and there it is.
We all know what miserable lives junior Ministers lead. They get all the brickbats. They get all the criticisms. The senior Minister remains in his office while the Minister of State or the Parliamentary Under-Secretary takes all the dirt on the Floor of the House and he hides behind the instruction. "You are not to give way. You've got your brief—stick to it. If there is any giving way to be done, I will give way in the House of Commons later, when I shall get the credit for it". We know all about that, so how is it that we can be deceived by the clever and kindly front which the Minister puts up?
Are we to have licences for people to slaughter poultry or are we not? If we are, then there "shall" be licences. If we are to have licences, then people must be properly trained and properly equipped. That is the whole purpose of the licences, that there shall be conditions. The word is "shall" and not "may".
We may get a long, tortuous explanation as to why "may" is preferable to "shall". But there should be no doubt about it. In fact, there should be a specific commitment in the Bill for the institution of a licensing system. I know that, unfortunately, relations between local authorities and the Government are at a low ebb at the present time. This system is a new responsibility to be put on local authorities, and I have not the slightest doubt that many local authorities will say, "If you are going to push all these extra duties on to us, then what about the money? What about the staff? Are we going to be chivvied on our expenditure by one Minister and then have new duties imposed on us by another? Let us know where we stand. If we are to assume new responsibilities, we want to be properly equipped for them".
That is not the only regard in which local authorities have their difficulties. There are already some duties imposed upon local authorities which they have not taken up, and nobody has insisted that they shall. But if cruelty is to be regarded as a public matter, then it cannot be left to local authorities to decide whether they will put up with that responsibility or not. Cruelty to children is not a matter left to local authorities in the direction and policy they have to follow. It has not been possible in the past for local authorities to dodge their statutory responsibilities under the Children Act 1975 and other Acts of Parliament which require them to have particular officers and to discharge certain duties.
Here, we cannot make it optional on local authorities, and we cannot make it optional on the Government either; they must do this thing. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord the Minister will accept this amendment. It is the substitution of the imperative for the discretionary. In my view, there can be no discretion about this matter, and I hope he will agree to the amendment. I beg to move.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Belstead: With respect to the noble Lord, one would not have guessed from most of his speech on this amendment that the clause is extending the powers in the Slaughter of Poultry Act 1967 in order for regulations to be made to require the licensing of people engaged in the commercial slaughter of poultry. Indeed, this clause causes those who are selling birds live to the intending consumer and then slaughtering them to be subject to the provisions of the clause.
I thought that the noble Lord would have found it in him—for he is always generous, even though it sometimes takes a little time to get to the generosity—to have recognised that this is a good clause and one that is making an advance so far as welfare is concerned. If the noble Lord could have brought himself to recognise that, then perhaps he could have taken another step and recognised also that it is not either senior or junior Ministers who are insisting on putting up an absolutely unshaken front which is the matter at issue here; it is all a question of consultation.
The noble Lord, with his great experience of these matters, will know that Section 3 of the 1967 Slaughter of Poultry Act provides that there shall be consultation with representative interests in extending this clause. If the regulations were obliged to include all the provisions listed in Clause 5, instead of enabling the Government to have discretion in the light of consultations to decide what should be done, it really would mean that the consultations would have no effect at all, or very little.
If the noble Lord is going to say to me that this is an obscure argument and that I am merely trying to get round the truth, may I take the matter head on and say to him that we would not have put Clause 5 in the Bill at all if we had not intended to use the provisions in the clause. So I do seriously beg the noble Lord to be a little more generous to the Government in bringing this Bill forward. It is a Bill which, as its name denotes, is supposed to improve, and we believe will, the
574
welfare of animals, which we all know the noble Lord has at heart. We shall be able to go on to debate some important amendments which the noble Lord has down to try to improve the Bill. In these debates I do ask the noble Lord to recognise that this is a Bill which is trying to take a step forward, not a step back.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I wonder what the Government have been doing all this time since this matter was first brought within the terms of reference of the Farm Animal Welfare Council in 1980. The first thing that the Farm Animal Welfare Council did when it was reconstituted was to go to the Minister and ask for an extension of its terms of reference to bring slaughter into it, and he granted that. They said, "The first thing we want to deal with is slaughter, the care of birds before slaughter, the methods of slaughter, and slaughter generally". That is what they have been doing. The Farm Animal Welfare Council took this on board in July 1980 and reported in January 1982, and it is their report of January 1982 that we are referring to constantly in relation to this Bill. It is now January 1984.
While the Farm Animal Welfare Council were doing their self-imposed task the Agriculture Committee of the House of Commons began work on animal welfare in poultry, pig and veal calf production. So the House of Commons committee was at work while the Farm Animal Welfare Council were at work. On 2nd July 1981 the House of Commons Agriculture Committee produced its report, which cost £55,000 to print, quite apart from all the expenditure on clerks and officials and witnesses. Look at it—evidence from everybody, consultations galore; it could not have done more. It is all here.
What happened after that? What happened after that was that the department sent out a circular to all the people they have to consult, all the people the noble Lord the Minister says would have to be mentioned in the Bill if the Farm Animal Welfare Council were referred to in the Bill. The names of all the people they sent this circular to at the beginning of 1983 covers a page of foolscap, both sides. The extraordinary thing about this circular is that it refers to what the agriculture Ministers will do and what the agriculture Ministers think, and so on. It says that certain matters will be deferred, certain matters will be included in the Bill. All this is put out for further consultation, and it is the end of 1983 when we get this Bill.
Now the Minister says this matter is for consultation. What further consultation, one might ask, is going to be material to the Government's intention? What about the consultations they might well have had with the staff of the Cheltenham headquarters—none whatever? They have made up their mind. They can make up their mind when they want to. As I said, they can take silly decisions on big questions and they cannot take wise decisions on small questions. Here we are arguing about whether it is to be "shall" or "may". The Minister says it need not be "shall" because what "may" means is that those concerned will. The Minister says, "Do you think we would have said 'may' if we did not intend to do it? Should we have put it in the Bill if we had had no

575
intention of carrying it out?" This is just playing with words, but they are important words. An Act of Parliament is read and people rely on it.
I think, quite honestly, this is pretty shocking. I do not know why we should be spending time on it. Talk about costs. Think of the hundreds of thousands of pounds spent already on consulting everybody who could be brought in for c onsultation. The Government say that they have made up their mind to do something, but "It must be 'may' in case we have a change of mind, or something stops us". I do not know; I give it up. I can only say that one can criticise a Labour Government for many things but one cannot criticise them for nonsense like this. If we were going to do something, we said we were going to do it, and we did it. On various matters all Governments have difficulty in deciding what to do and when to do it. But there cannot be any doubt at all that we must have a licensing system.
I do not want to bore the Committee by going into the different aspects of the process of slaughter by mechanical means which require training. The people involved have to understand the effect of electricity; they have to understand about the electric shock system of stunning; they have to understand about the automatic throat cutter; they have to understand whether birds are really paralysed or whether they have just had a shock and will suffer pain before they have got down to the end of the shackle line. Do we really appreciate what kind of process we are talking about? It is slaughter by machinery, slaughter by moving belts and wheels and the imposition of electric current. It is a terrible business, and people must be properly trained. They not only must be properly trained but must understand something of the animals they are dealing with.
There is a silly story told of a boy who wanted to be a slaughterman and was asked, "Why do you want to be a slaughterman?" He said, "Because I am fond of animals". We must surely get some understanding of people who engage in this task. It is not a particularly edifying vocation; I do not know whether it comes under the vocational training scheme we have just heard about.
If the Minister is going to be adamant about this, I think it is about time I felt I must divide the Committee and try to get a decision that way. I do not believe that the Committee can vote down the word "shall" when the Minister says, "It is going to mean 'shall' and the provision would not be in the Bill at all if it was not going to be 'shall'". But the Government do not want the word "shall" in the Bill; they want the word "may". Is that what the Committee is being asked to vote for? I cannot believe it. Anyway, I have had my say.
Lord Belstead: I ought just to say in reply that, as the noble Lord knows very much better than I do, licensing is highly technical and detailed. Consultation is necessary, but the consultation is not about whether—that is in the Bill—but about how we should introduce licensing. If we put in the word "shall", those who are consulted will say, "You do not mean to consult us. You have made up your minds already". If I may say so to the noble Lord, I do not think that that
576
would be a very good point on which to divide the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Jacques): The Question is that Amendment No. 3 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"? To the contrary, "Not-Content"? I think that the "Not-Contents" have it. Clear the Bar.
Tellers for the "Contents" have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 50. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the "Not-Contents" have it.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 16, after ("satisfied") insert ("particularly in respect of training and proficiency").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is merely to indicate the importance of training and proficiency as conditions for the granting of a licence. The Minister will say, "Of course they are. You do not need to say so in the Bill". One can anticipate the arguments that he will use, as they are so stereotyped. But I think that there is value occasionally in using an Act of Parliament to indicate the essentials of what it is proposed to do. That really is all that there is in this amendment. I shall not ask the Committee to spend a lot of time on it, nor shall I weary myself by spending a lot of time on it.
There are some things for which it is hardly worth coming to your Lordships' House. Noble Lords who have just arrived will realise that in due course. I see one or two new noble Lords around. I do not want to discourage them, but this is a very frustrating place. No wonder noble Lords come here either because they are fed up with the House of Commons or because they have ambitions to be something in the House of Lords. Quite frankly, there is not much else to bring one here. It is certainly not for what one can achieve.
I remember introducing in three Sessions in succession a Bill to outlaw the sale of live pet animals in open markets. Your Lordships were wise and good enough to pass that Bill three times. But it was not until a general election was pending and the Government realised that they had little to chalk up in the manifesto about what they had done on animal welfare that they grabbed at my little Bill, made special room for it in the other place on the last day of the Parliament and got it through. Upon my word, this little Bill of mine was passed almost at the last minute in the House of Commons, almost like being born in the vestry, and in their manifesto the Government claimed it as their own. I am not one who wants to take credit for what little bit of good one can do in this place. Let the Government have it. I do not mind. They can take credit for anything that they do in this Bill which arises from any overture that I have made for change.
Need I go on? I do not think I need. It is the old story: you either take it or leave it. There are plenty of arguments why this should not be done. I wish that the Minister could get as worked up about turning down amendments as I do in proposing them. It might then be worth listening to him. I beg to move.
Lord John-Mackie: As an erstwhile junior Minister, I am still smarting from the castigation that we had from my noble friend a few minutes ago. I hope that he will be pleased to know that I support this amendment. As I said about his first amendment, I do not see that the words do any harm. It would be pleasant if the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, could satisfy my noble friend for once. We might then get on a bit more quickly. I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord.
Lord Belstead: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, does not feel that he is making much progress this afternoon. I am even more sorry that he feels that more generally he does not make very much progress in your Lordships' House. I cannot believe that it is anything that I have done. I remember very well the three successive Sessions in which the noble Lord put forward his Bill to regulate the sale of live pet animals in markets. If my memory serves me right, on each occasion through long hours we dealt with that important concept—and it was an important concept. As the noble Lord rightly said, it ended up on the statute book.
So far as this Bill is concerned, although the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has supported his noble friend, for myself I find it difficult to support the amendment, though on Second Reading I ventured to make it absolutely crystal clear that we place great importance on provision for training being made in the regulations. However, if we were to accept the amendment, I think that a whole string of amendments of a similar nature, though dealing with other matters, would immediately be tabled in order to have specific conditions, and I believe that the time to consider specific conditions is when the regulations are made. But before they are made there will of course be the consultation process, which must be undertaken statutorily under Section 3 of the Slaughter of Poultry Act 1976. To include specific points in the Bill could prejudice the generality of the powers and make it more difficult for other matters to be included when we come to consult and to make the regulations.
So I would repeat the assurance, which I originally gave on Second Reading, that it is our firm intention to include in the regulations provision for training; let there be no doubt about that. I hope that in the light of that assurance the noble Lord will feel that it would not be right to include training as one specific item in the regulations, because if we were to do that we would in some way be belittling other points which should be in the regulations, and that I believe would be a pity.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I shall not take up the time of the Committee in replying to the noble Lord in the vein to which I am accustomed. I shall leave him alone for a minute or two because I want to be left alone myself for a minute or two and make way for my noble friend Lord John-Mackie. I think that it is about time he had a go. I am becoming a little weary, and there will be quite a lot else that will engage the attention of the noble Lord the Minister when I come to a subsequent amendment. So I shall put greater reliance on the understandings—I do not say undertakings—that we have gained from the debate on
578
this particular matter, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.43 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 25, at end insert—
(" (1D) The Minister shall have the power to waive the need for a licence on certain small amounts of on the farm slaughter.").
The noble Lord said: I rise with some trepidation to move this amendment because earlier, without hearing my arguments, my noble friend Lord Houghton remarked that he did not like the look of it. As we all know, a tremendous amount of poultry is slaughtered on farms. I think back to my mother's day when she reared a score of turkeys for Christmas. She killed them all herself. One went to the parson, one to the schoolmaster, another to the doctor, and perhaps a couple were kept for Christmas and the new year, and the rest were sold. The very thought of that kind of activity needing a licence is quite ridiculous. But now larger amounts of poultry are kept on farms, and there could be problems. If during the rush to get poultry ready for Christmas something went wrong with a licensed slaughterer who had been employed, there could be quite a lot of difficulty in getting another slaughterer in time.
My amendment refers to "small amounts", and I know that in a legal sense in some instances "small amounts" can cover a large scale. So in some ways the amendment may not be well worded. But I think that there is much to be said for the fact that when poultry are slaughtered at the point of production their welfare is looked after much more than if they are carted about in crates, kept in slaughterhouses—perhaps not too well—and then slaughtered there.
I think that it is reasonable to ask the Minister to look at the point to make sure that great difficulties would not be created on farms where the amounts are on the whole negligible, but important to the farmers concerned. The difficulties may be avoided if in such cases the necessity of a licence was waived. I beg to move.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I have some sympathy with the amendment because it is practical for small farmers. As everyone knows, small farmers have always wrung the necks of their poultry. But members of the public would be extremely mystified if what is proposed in the amendment were to be inserted into the Bill because the Bill's main object is to improve the means of slaughtering poultry, so that it is done by the most humane method. Therefore the public may think it very illogical that whereas large amounts—thousands—of poultry have to be slaughtered in the most humane way, or at any rate in what the Government and the so-called experts think is the most humane way, the slaughtering of small amounts of poultry is not covered in the Bill. That would be very illogical.
I very well understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. Poultry on all small farms is free range, and there it would be very difficult to slaughter the poultry in the same way as it is done on very large poultry farms. Perhaps I have got it wrong, but it seems to me that if the proposal were included

579
in the Bill it would be very illogical, though on the other hand it would be practical for small farmers. However, I am rather mystified.
Lord John-Mackie: Before the noble Viscount sits down, I should like to point out that I was not suggesting that there should be an alteration in the method of slaughter. One can get a small hand stunner and the same method of stunning the animal and then bleeding it would be carried out in the cases that I have mentioned. I am not asking to go back to the old method of putting the head below a stick between the legs and pulling up.
Lord Gisborough: I should like very briefly to support the amendment. There are many farmers who breed poultry for the Christmas trade and then have to slaughter it themselves. While there is every support for ensuring that the method of slaughter is controlled and that the right method is used, the Bill allows for extra people to go in to do the job at such times as Christmas.
Lord Somers: Would it be possible to limit the number by inserting the words,
"small amounts of individual animals"?
That might possibly imply a smaller number.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, raised this matter in his speech on Second Reading. In the amendment he is asking for a power to exempt the smaller producer who is slaughtering on the farm, and my noble friend Lord Gisborough, and I think by implication the noble Lord, Lord Somers, would support the noble Lord in the amendment. I believe that the power that is sought is already available. By that I mean that I think that in the clause there is wording which means that when the regulations are made it will be perfectly possible for the smaller farmer to be exempted. Of course it would be necessary to face the problem of how exactly to define the smaller producer; and the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has made a suggestion in that regard that we should like to look at.
I am not absolutely certain that I can tell the noble Lord that his point is met. I shall look carefully at the Bill to make absolutely certain that it is met. If I am not correct in the belief that it is, I shall get in touch with the noble Lord and we can return to the matter at a later stage. I believe that this power should be in the Bill. It is right that there should be a power, and I believe that the power is already there. Having said that, I cannot say precisely what activities might be prescribed for any exemption or what qualifications we might wish to attach. We shall be undertaking full consultation before the regulations are made. We have to do so under the 1967 Act. We shall give very careful consideration to all representations made to us by small farmers, by the farming unions and by other interests concerned.
I come finally to the point made by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard. My noble friend stated in essence that there is surely a difficulty here, that if we are concerned about the welfare of large numbers of birds. then we must not run the risk of being accused
580
in either House of Parliament of not being concerned with the welfare of smaller numbers of birds. Our priority, first and foremost, must be the welfare of the birds concerned.
I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, said. The noble Lord would immediately say to me that he is concerned, and I would agree with him, about small numbers of birds. As he explained, there is reason to believe that where you have smaller numbers of birds it is easier to deal with the welfare of those birds than it is in the case of large numbers of them. These are all matters which need to be considered in the consultation process before the regulations are made.
At this stage I think that all I can say is that we agree that the power to be able to do this should be contained in the Bill. I believe that it is in the Bill, but I am not absolutely certain. If by any chance I find it is not, I shall immediately get in touch with the noble Lord and we can return to the point at a later stage. With the assurance that I have given, I hope that he might feel that for the moment the point is covered.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Before my noble friend Lord John-Mackie responds, may I underline one point. The amendment speaks of, "on the farm slaughter" and farmers have been referred to through-out the discussions so far. I hope that we can distinguish between "on the farm slaughter"—that is, the farmer slaughterer—and the small poultry slaughterer. There is a distinction. One can concede something to the farmer given an order for a dozen hens or cockerels for Christmas who says, "I will slaughter them and dress them". I am anxious, however, that we should not be led into thinking that cover can be given to someone who sets up as a small slaughterer. He is not a farmer. He is just pulling in birds and slaughtering on a small scale. Then he becomes a slaughterer on a big scale, or a bigger scale. So the thing grows. We want to be clear that we are talking about "on the farm slaughter". The noble Lord the Minister in considering the matter further will have to bear that distinction in mind.
Lord Belstead: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, says this because it is important to take that point on board. In saying that one of the things to be taken into account in making the regulations was the number of birds being dealt with, I was in no way seeking to cast any reflection upon the standards of the very large-scale slaughterers. I was addressing myself entirely to the point that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, made, to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has also drawn attention. It was that which, I was saying on behalf of the Government, would need to be considered along with a whole lot of other matters when the regulations are made. I believe that there is power in the clause to be able to do so. I feel rather shamefaced in having to put it like that and not being absolutely certain. But, shortly before the Bill came on to the Floor of the House, I and those advising me felt that we were not absolutely certain in giving a complete undertaking to the noble Lord. That is why I have spoken in this way.
Lord John-Mackie: I should like to thank those noble Lords who have supported the amendment. I

581
am not a lawyer or a draftsman. I recognise that the amendment is not well drafted and that it leaves out the point mentioned by my noble friend. It uses the expression "on the farm". I meant the farmer and I meant small-scale. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for the point that he made in order to try and get over the difficulty of the size. I do not wish in any way to make slaughtering any different. I would like to think that slaughterers are liable to be inspected to see that they have a proper stunner and carry out the job as it is done where regulated by licence. In saying that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Codes of Practice]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 28, after ("with") insert ("the Farm Animal Welfare Council and").
The noble Lord said: I leave the Farm Animal Welfare Council to their obscurity for the time being and do not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
4.57 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 34, after ("it") insert ("and in particular on matters contained in Schedule (Codes of Practice) to this Act").
The noble Lord said: This is really a paving amendment to the new schedule. I presume that it would be convenient to deal with the schedule at the same time as the amendment that makes room for it. I do not want to stand in the way of other noble Lords who have amendments on the Order Paper, but I have to dwell for a few moments on the schedule and why I propose it should be there. Here again, I am trying to put some pep into the Bill. One of the problems of amending legislation is the tortuous nature of the wording and construction of the amending Bill.
A great deal in the Bill amends or inserts new forms of words and new provisions in the 1967 Act. There are references all the time to "this Act", the Act being the 1967 Act. It is not easy all the time to follow what exactly is being done. I do not want to attribute any unworthy motives to the Minister, the parliamentary draftsman or anyone else, but these Bills become so dull and so difficult to follow that unless you sit down and really do your homework you do not know what they are about. That is why it is so difficult for noble Lords who wish to gain some enlightenment from the debate on a Bill of this kind to know what it is about.
I refer again to the report of the Farm Animal Research Council. I am not intending again to deal with the timetable but the fact is that everything is taking too long. Some reforms take an inordinate length of time to achieve. While the consideration is going on and civil servants are pondering over things, referring them to their veterinary experts and going out to all the people who matter and quite a lot of people who do not, the world is changing. The public, or some sections of it, are getting more and more
582
impatient. The epithet which my young friends throw at me about this place is, "It's irrelevant. It doesn't do things. It doesn't get them done". If the process of parliamentary democracy is going to be so slothful as not to satisfy the demands for change, then we shall get a good deal of discontent and annoyance, and that can take very undesirable and objectionable forms.
The Farm Animal Welfare Council produced its report in 1982. There were altogether some 37 recommendations on poultry and similar birds, which shows that they found a good deal wrong from their own inspection—probably a closer inspection undertaken by a body of experts and responsible people than has been undertaken by any other body or any other person in this country. They make these journeys; they have to look at these things and then get to sleep at night and go to see another lot the next day. As I said earlier, they do that in the public interest, in order that we can eliminate species other than our own with at least some modicum of humanity. It is the duty of the legislature not only to pay respect but to bow very definitely to the view of those who have studied the matter at first hand and who can recommend to Parliament what they think should be done.
One can scarcely believe it, but this Bill contains, in terms, only two of the 37 recommendations made by the Farm Animal Welfare Council. It is not quite as black a record as it might seem from the statistics, because the Farm Animal Welfare Council made a number of recommendations for further research, which shows how reasonable they were in not reaching conclusions on some matters until various ideas, alternatives or reforms had been tested. Paragraphs 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21 24, 28 and 31 contain nine recommendations for further research. They are obviously not in the Bill and I am not complaining about that. What I ask for in passing is some firm assurances as to what is happening to the research which the council recommended. I raised this matter on Second Reading and the noble Lord the Minister gave the assurance that not all that is in the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report needs to be included in this or in any other legislation because it will be possible by regulation for it to be included in the code of practice. I believe that some of the recommendations could be implemented by legislation or regulations already in existence and therefore there would be no need to include them in the Bill. Moreover, if they are included in regulations, they can be made under the parent authority which includes the 1971 regulations which could be extended, as I understand it, under the provisions of the 1967 Act.
However, Recommendation 37 was especially important and the Minister spent some time on it because my noble friend raised it. It is the recommendation for the continuance of the official veterinary surgeon as the enforcing authority's representative on the spot who should be made responsible for the supervision of the welfare of the birds and should be required to report to the local authority any breaches of welfare regulations and to spend sufficient time at the plant each day to carry out these duties. The British Veterinary Association naturally attaches great importance to this provision. My noble friend Lord John-Mackie will be able to speak for himself on the matter, but certainly I regard this as a very important

583
measure of expert cover and of oversight. What is lacking in many cases is oversight when things may go wrong or when practices may grow up which are undesirable. There are other recommendations which seem so obvious and yet standards were obviously so deficient during the inspections made by the Farm Animal Welfare Council as to lead them to make recommendations for their special attention.
I have left a lot out of the schedule, which for formal purposes I shall move. Indeed, I have included in the schedule mainly the recommendations under paragraph 64. If noble Lords care to cast their eyes over this schedule they will see that it deals with matters that obviously should be done. But I am not going to pretend that it is a very satisfactory way of dealing with the matter to pick out some recommendations and to put them in a schedule and say that they should be referred to especially. Yet what is one to do?
The sad aspect of the whole operation in which we are engaged this afternoon is that we have the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report to which lots of people who are interested in this matter are giving attention all the time. But what is happening? The Bill says that something "shall be done" and that other things "may be done", and that "consultations must take place" and so on. Those who have been waiting since 1982 to see the implementation of the recommendations of the Farm Animal Welfare Council look at this Bill and say, "Where is it? Are you telling us that this is the implementation of the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report? Is this all that is happening after all this time?" Even now the Minister tells us that there will have to be further consultations all round the clock before we can go on. How much longer? How many people do we have to consult before we say, "Cruelty must stop"?
Are we going to subordinate the moral issue of cruelty to animals and birds to the caprice of the market or the indifference of individuals or the doctrine of me first and all the time? I thought we had a Government that had something to say about moral issues, Victorian and otherwise. Where are they in this particular context? I am trying to push things on. I cannot say that my proposed schedule is a recipe for speed; it does not start the engine going. All it says is "may" and "inter alia". It is merely mentioning various matters; it is something to show for the work that has been done by the Farm Animal Welfare Council. I believe I am right in saying that my schedule—this truncated selection from the recommendations of the Farm Animal Welfare Council—contains nothing to which the industry can object. What is there is in the best run slaughterhouses already, but not in all of them. There are no conditions which at the moment impose these standards. That is what the schedule is all about.
I am simply trying to put some spunk into the Minister and to get some determination behind it. If there is anything more feeble than my schedule, it will be the reply which the Minister will give to it. That is what it all amounts to. Dwelling on the political scenery of Britain at the present time, I sometimes wonder whether the two major parties have been under the influence of unions—the Labour Party under the influence of the Transport and General
584
Workers' Union and the Tory Party under the influence of the National Farmers' Union. I sometimes wonder whether we ought not to recall Mr. Tebbit to release the political shackles which I think bind the Tory Party when it looks at these commercial interests. That is all.
This is an attempt to get something that will put heart into those who want to see more humane action taken in the slaughter of birds and animals for human consumption. I wish that the consumer would stand up for this more than he and she does. They are the people who dictate what shall be done. If they would only turn their attention to how things get on the dining table, in the kitchen, in the shops or wherever, I think they would find that there is something in which they could take a hand.
Certainly women have more responsibility for some aspects of animal cruelty than any other section of the community. To breed mink and foxes for their furs for adornment purposes is mostly for women, yet the fur coat is a sort of social status. When I was a member of the Royal Commission on Corruption in Public Life it was astonishing how cheaply people sold their honour, and it was often for a fur coat for the wife. I thought what a contemptible state of affairs that was. I think it is a contemptible occupation to be engaged in, whether at Cocksparrow Farm or wherever. Yet this is all part of the general scenery of the way in which we treat our animals.
Food is essential but other things are not; but cruelty takes place all over the commercial market dealing with animals. I have digressed, but this is the climax of what I was putting to the Committee this afternoon. I beg to move that this schedule be added to the Bill.
Lord John-Mackie: I think that the word one should use about my noble friend's remarks in moving his amendment is "wide-ranging". This is a paving amendment to his schedule at the end of the Marshalled List. My noble friend hs put forward a very strong case for his code. He admits that it is not complete and that it could be improved. Before we reach any decision on it I await the Minister's reply as to whether or not he thinks it should be included in the Bill in due course.
Lord Somers: I should like to ask the noble Lord whether there are not two misprints here. One is in Amendment No. 8, which says:
"…during which vehicles containing live birds may remain unloaded on reaching their destination".
Does not the noble Lord mean "loaded on reaching their destination"?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Is that in the schedule?
Lord Somers: No, this is in Amendment No. 8.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: At the moment I have only moved Amendment No. 7.
Lord Somers: Yes, I know, but we are coming to Amendment No. 8. Am I in order to speak to the schedule?
Lord Belstead: With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton,

585
was moving Amendment No. 7, but the noble Lord was also speaking to Amendment No. 14.
The Earl of Shannon: I fully appreciate that the whole matter of this Bill is a most emotive subject. We all have our store of horror stories based on varying degrees of factuality, and it always tends to lead us to believe that someone else is scurrilously opposed to our own particular hobby-horse. Therefore, it is with particular regret that I rise to oppose this amendment as a paving amendment for the inclusion of the new schedule to the Bill. I do not have anything at all against the schedule itself; I think that its conditions are admirable. I just oppose the fact that they come as an amendment in primary legislation because, as such, it becomes more or less inscribed in tablets of stone, for ever immutable, or only alterable with immense administrative effort.
I think that noble Lords would be generally agreed that, owing to the extreme sensitivity of this subject, the trade federations concerned have been very worried over their image and they have themselves been to great lengths to assist in establishing codes of practice, often based on extensive and most expensive research which they have carried out. In this case I suppose that we are referring mainly to the British Poultry Federation, but I think that the Minister would probably agree that all those organisations have been very responsible, and have been very responsive in providing on-going advice as to what is the up-to-date state of the art.
Once we include codes of practice in primary legislation, we are fixing ourselves at a point in time, with the attendant difficulties regarding change. It is for this reason, and its lack of flexibility in change, and not the provisions of the schedule to come under the later amendment, that I must oppose this amendment.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Belstead: The effect of Amendment No. 14, to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, was speaking as well as moving Amendment No. 7, is to put into this Bill different items which would form part of the code of practice for which the Bill is providing in general terms—a code of practice for the practical application of the legislative provisions for the welfare of poultry, both before and up to the moment of slaughter. I think I can allay Lord Houghton's apprehensions when I say straight away that all the points the noble Lord has listed in his schedule in Amendment No. 14 are, so we intend, to be covered in a code of practice. All of those points in Amendment No. 14 are listed in the Government's response to the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report as being suitable for inclusion in the code.
I would go further and say that we shall shortly introduce the proposals for regulations to cover many of those points, and the ones which do not go into the regulations will anyway be going into the code. The noble Lord made the point in moving the amendment that in addition to the points in Amendment No. 14 there are other things which the Farm Animal Welfare Council recommended. It is here that we come into a practical difficulty, because it would certainly disturb the Government if we felt that we had put into primary legislation certain points which were said to be
586
necessary for a code and then had left other points out. This would start us off on the wrong foot.
In addition to that there is the general point of principle which the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, put to the Committee, and I am bound to say that I agree with the noble Earl. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will accept my assurance that the points—important points in many cases—are going to be covered in the code of practice for which Clause 6 makes provision, and some of the points will be in regulations also.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his reply. We are almost getting on friendly terms, and I am grateful for that. I appreciate, too, the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Shannon. This gives me the opportunity of paying great tribute indeed to the work being done by enlightened leaders of some of the trade associations. A good deal of expense is being incurred by the British Poultry Federation, for one, in trying to seek answers to deficiencies of which they are as fully aware as anybody who goes to look at them, and probably more so.
They are conscious of their image and the unfavourable publicity given to particular cases which are reported, or may be the subject of prosecutions. One must not overlook the fact that the RSPCA are as vigilant as they can be on matters of this kind. I sometimes wonder why it is left to the RSPCA to engage in prosecutions when it is the duty of somebody else. When you find that a person who is prosecuted and convicted for neglect and then not long afterwards is prosecuted and convicted a second time, you wonder what sort of person he is to be doing this job at all. Yet it is the RSPCA, a voluntary organisation, which embarks on this task.
Prosecutions cost the RSPCA over £100,000 a year, and yet, in a sense, this is not their duty. They have no right of entry. Unlike the inspectors of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, they have no power to go into premises and take anything away. Indeed, I think the National Association for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children is the only voluntary body which has a statutory right of entry. This is all a part of the general scenery in which this work is undertaken, and everybody is playing a part. Those who are doing it voluntarily and on subscriptions from the public, and so forth, want to be encouraged in the work they are doing.
The Minister has naturally pointed out that this is not a very tidy or efficient way of adding a schedule to a Bill. It was highly selective, and I am glad to have included in it matters which the Minister says are to be covered by the code of practice, and some of them by regulations when the time comes. Yet again, I must be content with very small mercies—very small indeed—and accept the Minister's assurances, and offer some hope to those who clamour outside, and who write to me, and say, "Why isn't something being done?" It is not an exciting role for anybody who takes up a cause in Parliament. You get letters from hundreds of people asking you why you are not doing more, and why animals everywhere at all times are not being protected by some legislation worldwide. It is moving to get letters and representations of this kind. and also

587
other activities provide one with serious anxieties from time to time.
I accept what the Minister has said, and I am grateful for the opportunity of making a few comments in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Shannon. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment No. 7, and with it Amendment No. 14.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) The Ministers shall however prepare and make within six calendar months of the passing of this Act regulations limiting the period of time during which vehicles containing live birds may remain unloaded on reaching their destination.").
The noble Lord said: This is another difficult one. In Amendment No. 8 I have dwelt on one aspect of this industry which is open to the observation of many people who are concerned. It deals with the length of time that vehicles containing live birds may, on reaching their destinations, be left with the birds in the crates into which, in lots of cases, they were put many hours before. At the present time occurrences of this kind can be dealt with only under the Protection of Animals Act 1911. I mention one case which the RSPCA dealt with. They prosecuted in a case where 600 out of 3,000 birds died for lack of ventilation when left outside the slaughter premises for six hours. This must have occurred under very unfavourable climatic conditions. This can happen; there is no proscription about it at the present time. To get a conviction one has to prove to the satisfaction of a court that some person was guilty of unnecessary cruelty.
I know there is another part of this story which I have not included in this amendment, and that is the length of time to be occupied by the journey itself. I am told of poultry which come in crates from Northern Ireland down to the South of England, having been in these crates for many, many hours. As noble Lords who have ever seen this know, they are pretty crowded in the crates. That is not necessarily an act of cruelty because to bunch them up is often kinder to them than to leave them to be knocked about all over the place. One supports another as they jolt along. Conditions of oppressive heat can of course prove a very trying time for them, but I have not dealt with that.
Again, I am highlighting things: I am trying to get debate; I am trying to get a response from the Minister; I am trying to keep the thing active so that 'we do not just disappear in the public mind as a Parliament of complacent and indifferent people. What I say here is that the Minister should:
"prepare and make within six calendar months of the passing of this Act regulations limiting the period of time during which vehicles containing live birds may remain unloaded on reaching their destination".
As the noble Lord, Lord Somers, said, it really means "shall remain loaded" but it also means "remain unloaded". Either way they are within the crates waiting outside the slaughter place for an unlimited number of hours, until you can say: "What
588
happened was so bad that they could be prosecuted for causing unnecessary suffering." In these circumstances, you usually have to show that so many hundreds of the birds died through lack of ventilation, that so many were injured, and anyway there was a lot of mess which should never have occurred.
The Minister is probably going to say, "Here we are, this is another example of putting in the legislation something which will appear somewhere else in due course." That may be true. It only deals with one half of the story, but, short of drafting a new Act altogether and taking some of these problems or decisions as already solved, and including them in the Bill, it is difficult to know what else to do.
I offer this one for the Minister's consideration, and ask him what he has to say about something which is probably the main distress caused to the observer, at any rate; people who live near these places are greatly distressed by what goes on, and one can understand how upset they get.
It may be that some premises have not enough accommodation for bringing the crates in, unloading them and giving these unfortunate birds a little respite from their travels and from the congested conditions under which they have arrived.
I beg to move, hopefully but ready as ever for disappointment in my efforts for the afternoon.
Lord John-Mackie: Arranging lorries to arrive at a particular time so that they can be unloaded is a very difficult problem, and it is one which applies to all haulage situations. It does not matter whether it is wheat, potatoes or anything else: there are always hold-ups; lorries break down and the timing is very bad.
When it comes to the transport of livestock, of course, the birds, or the beasts for that matter, suffer. I think my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby is quite right to raise this as a real point. He mentioned that birds were standing for 5 or even 6 hours on one occasion before there was a prosecution. But whether this should go in as part of the Bill, I do not know. I will leave that with the Minister, who I am sure must take the point that this is a very real problem and it is one we should try to solve one way or the other.
I think good management at a poultry slaughter-house would alleviate the situation considerably. I think of trying to make people come at the time the birds are required. I see no reason why that should not be done. But whether it should be in the Bill is a different story. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say.
Lord Somers: I still think that "loaded" would be less misleading than "unloaded". But if the noble Lord wishes to include "unloaded while still in their crates," why not limit the time that birds shall remain in their crates on arrival?
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I should like to support this amendment. As Lord John-Mackie pointed out, the troublesome question arises when lorries arrive at the slaughterhouse. If there is not good management, they may arrive at the wrong time. Then the lorry might breakdown. This could prove extremely inhumane and cruel, especially when the

589
lorry is parked in the sun, and the birds become dehydrated. If they are extremely firmly packed they will be extremely uncomfortable and may well die.
I should like to recount something that happened in that regard. I had a big dog show in my grounds this summer, and it was a hot day. There were a lot of cars parked in the sun and some people were so ignorant that they left their dogs in the cars and did not open the windows. We had to go around smashing windows with hammers in order that the dogs should survive. We thought three were dead, but the vet was able to revive them. We broadcast over the Tannoy system, but if the people concerned do not turn up you cannot let the dogs die; so we just smashed the windows.
This is rather outside the scope of this amendment, but great distress can be caused if birds going to the slaughterhouse are not unloaded promptly. Whether it is practical to put it into the Bill I must leave to my noble friend the Minister.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Belstead: I fully appreciate why the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, wishes to make this amendment. I think all of us in the Committee this evening feel that he is rightly concerned about the condition of birds which may spend long periods in a lorry outside the slaughterhouse before they are unloaded for slaughter.
Incidentally, in passing, I should just say that the suffering of birds in a vehicle through lack of ventilation would, of course, be an offence now against the Conveyance of Live Poultry Order 1919 or the Slaughter of Poultry (Humane Conditions) Regulations 1971.
Having said that, the noble Lord has a very important point here, and the Government share his concern. We are determined to do what we can to improve the welfare of these birds. I was very grateful to the noble Lord for the generous words he spoke about the British Poultry Federation on the last amendment. I was very glad the noble Lord saw fit to do that, and I feel sure that what he said will be appreciated by the federation, which indeed is doing good work in respect of poultry welfare.
There is, I think, a real difficulty about this amendment, and not perhaps quite the kind of difficulty which noble Lords may expect me to put forward; it is a practical difficulty. I think it may be that this amendment could lead to a deterioration in the welfare of some consignments of birds, and I will explain why I say that. If, for instance, a consignment arrives at a slaughterhouse at a time when the operator knows that he will not be able to process the poultry within the time laid down, he might, in order to avoid breaking the law, refuse the lorry admission so that the birds might end up in an unprotected lay-by or a car park somewhere else. This is, I think, a very real possibility.
To take another example, the birds may be kept on the lorry for the period laid down in circumstances in which welfare considerations would have required immediate unloading. In other words, those concerned may simply say, "The law allows us to continue to have the lorry loaded for a period of time." And they just go off and leave the load instead of unloading
590
immediately, as perhaps they otherwise would have done. For these reasons I think we need to think very carefully about the way in which we make regulations, if we are to tie it to the formula in the noble Lord's amendment.
There are two further points which I must make. The first is that we already have powers to make regulations governing the welfare of poultry on lorries, both on the road and at the slaughterhouse. The second point is that this matter is under review at the present time, and I should just say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that if he puts a pistol to the head of the Government so far as timing is concerned, I think we might well find we have not got quite enough time to continue the necessary consultations on this matter. The Farm Animal Welfare Council has already been consulted on the Ministry's proposals for a new order on the transport of live poultry. I understand that the council has recently suggested some modifications to try to cover the problem with which the noble Lord is concerned, and, indeed, to try to cover the sort of problems that I have outlined in my remarks. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that the suggestions of the Farm Animal Welfare Council are under consideration now.
So without in any way wanting to appear that we are dragging our feet—I assure the noble Lord that we are not—I give an assurance that we are fully seized of the concern on this matter and that we most certainly intend to take action. But for the reasons I have given, I think that the amendment might be counter-productive as it is drafted. I will not conceal from the noble Lord that I am a little worried about having a pistol put to our heads concerning the timing, although we intend to try to get this difficult problem put right.
Lord Somers: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, whether it would be possible to achieve the same end by, starting from the beginning, limiting the time in which the birds are allowed to remain in a crate?
Lord Belstead: This may be one of the options which is being considered at present. The difficulty one has to contend with is in trying to make absolutely certain that what is not done is to find that when a lorry arrives at its destination the time limit has run out and the operator may say to the driver: "I am going to break the law if you are allowed to be unloaded," and therefore turn the vehicle away. That is one of the greatest difficulties. But I repeat my assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. We have received some alternative, revised suggestions from the Farm Animal Welfare Council, and I assure the Committee that those and other considerations are under active deliberation at present.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am very grateful to the noble Lord. The last thing in the world I would do is to put a pistol at the Government's head, in case it was loaded and accidentally went off. The Minister has given a full explanation of the difficulties. I am bound to confess that in my own amateur way I have tried to pick out suitable subjects for debate on the Bill in Committee. I realise that in this matter I have only half the problem, and it is a difficult half as well—but all in

591
all it is the transportation and waiting time problem not only at the destination but at intermediate stages.
There is a good deal to consider in this regard and I am glad to receive the assurances of the noble Lord. This is the final word I shall be putting on the Committee stage, and I should like to thank the Minister very much for his patience and endurance to thank also the noble Lords who have stayed to listen to my afternoon of harangue on cruelty to poultry and kindred matters. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 5, line 22, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment to subsection (5), which begins,
"The Ministers shall cause any code issued or revised under this section to be printed, and"—
not "shall" but only—
"may make such arrangements as they think fit for its distribution".
I cannot think of any circumstances in which Ministers "think fit" to do something, have power to do it, but are not required to do it and can please themselves whether they do it or not. If this subsection had been expressed, "Ministers may, but need not, make such arrangements as they think fit", that would not have altered the sense of the subsection, but noble Lords would have been rather surprised to read it.
Particularly is this an important matter in a field in which people are liable to be made guilty of a criminal offence. We are dealing with such a situation here because that appears in subsection (7). If I may for a moment look forward to subsection (7) and summarise it without altering any of the words of the subsection, it reads:
"If…any person…failed to follow…a code issued under this section…that failure may be relied on by the prosecution as tending to establish his guilt".
I know that there is a presumption that everyone is supposed to know the law. I suppose the administration of the criminal law would be impossible without such a presumption; but surely that does not mean that Parliament, the law-maker, shall not make quite certain that proper steps are being taken to make the new law known to those people to whom it is of concern and who may be guilty of a criminal offence if they fail to observe the new law. I should have thought that there was no question that, in this matter of seeing that the codes of practice, which people may offend against, are made known to the people who want to know about them, it should be imperative that the Ministers who see fit to make the arrangements "shall" make those arrangements to see that copies of the code are properly distributed. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: First, I should like to make it perfectly clear to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that the Government most certainly will make arrangements for the distribution of codes of practice issued under this clause. However, the noble Lord's amendment would appear also to oblige the Government to put copies on sale, and we would not wish to be contrained to do so, since, in the interests of
592
promoting the welfare of poultry in slaughterhouses—and precisely because, as the noble Lord has pointed out in his speech, at the end of the day there is a sanction in the criminal law—it is our intention to distribute copies free of charge to, for instance, the slaughtering industry and others with an interest in the humane slaughter of poultry. The Government are anxious to avoid the problem that the amendment would cause in the way I have just explained. With assurance that we shall most certainly be distributing copies, I hope that the noble Lord may think it is right to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Airedale: I am grateful for that reply, but I am sorry to say that I do not find it satisfactory. What we need to do, surely, if the Government are with me as far as the first part of the subsection goes, is to redraft it so that there are separate obligations. One is that Ministers "shall" make proper arrangements for distribution and need not put them on sale, but may distribute copies freely, which I am delighted to hear may happen. It is simply a matter, is it not, of separating two things and applying my amendment to one and not to the other?
Lord Belstead: I admit that what the noble Lord has said is not particularly complicated and I do not know that I need to go away to think about it for too long. But it is the noble Lord's amendment and not the Government's and if I think about it a little perhaps the noble Lord would think about it a little, too, and perhaps we shall come to an arrangement at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Airedale: I think that is a very happy and satisfactory arrangement and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 5, line 25, after ("such") insert ("reasonable").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is very much in the same field. It seeks to alter the last but one line of the subsection so that instead of saying that the document should be put on sale to the public—
"at such price as the Ministers may determine",
it will say,
"at such reasonable price as the Ministers may determine".
I was very glad to hear that there may be free issues of the code, but nevertheless the Government are reserving to themselves the right to put them on sale to the public at a price.
My concern about this arises from my experience of serving on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, because I have come to learn that it is Government policy in many fields that the cost of providing services by Government departments shall so far as possible be met financially, and in an instance like this that would mean that the price put on documents would meet the economic cost of printing them. I am no expert on printing but I think that I know this much: if you are printing a very large number of a document the price per copy may be quite reasonable, but if it is what the printers call a "short

593
print", the economic cost per copy may be extraordinarily high. This code, which is really addressed only to a very small number of people compared with the whole population, will have a very limited circulation indeed and I can envisage that under this Government policy the price per copy to the public might be extraordinarily high.
There is the further point that unless you put in the word "reasonable" you are virtually ousting the jurisdiction of the court because if anybody tried to take a case before the court, unless the Minister had gone quite mad and put a completely ridiculous price on the document, the court would say: "This matter is entirely within the Minister's own discretion and although we, the court, may think that this document is priced extremely high it is not for us to interfere with the Minister's discretion." But the moment you introduce the word "reasonable" that introduces the jurisdiction of the court because it enables the court to inquire into the reasonableness of the Minister's decision to set that price upon the document.
Therefore I trust that this amendment will be acceptable because I think it is extremely important, when you are dealing with documents which may have a bearing upon whether or not somebody commits a criminal offence, that the cost of the document should be reasonable from the point of view of the purchaser. Incidentally, I think that the court would interpret "reasonable" as meaning reasonable from the point of view of the person who wants to purchase the document. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: The effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to provide that the price which would be charged when a price is to be charged for the distribution of codes of practice must be reasonable. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in the final words he addressed to the Committee a little earlier this afternoon—they were characteristically generous and I was most grateful to him—came close to saying I think that Ministers—at any rate sometimes—are not unreasonable. I would say that those of us who serve in governments are always reasonable—not because I have an inflated idea of what those of us who work in governments are like but because the advice I have received is that it is the case that all Ministers' decisions are subject to judicial review and a test of reasonableness.
The noble Lord has endeavoured to persuade us that whether or not that is so, if the court came to look at the price which was being paid it would be important to have the word "reasonable" in. The noble Lord felt the court would take the view that "reasonable" would mean "reasonable from the point of view of the person who is paying the price". I do not know whether that is the construction which the court would put on the word "reasonable", and the noble Lord may be right or he may not. At any rate, I shall not attempt to contradict him. I am not entirely sure, for the reasons that I have given about ministerial decisions being subject to the test of reasonableness, that it is completely necessary to have the word "reasonable" in. However, the noble Lord has made a good case and I have great pleasure in accepting his amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Artificial breeding of livestock]:
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 7, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) In all cases an estimated cost of fees for carrying out the regulations in this section including issue of licences etc. will be intimated to the applicant.")
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment to get something out of the Minister about who is to decide how much the fees might be, because there is considerable feeling that it might cost, in the case of Al, up to £300 a bull. That is a fairly heavy charge on the industry. There is also the question of embryo implantation, and to set up an outfit to do that is very expensive. Then in addition to that very high fees are charged for all the various regulations, so that might make it uneconomic. I wonder whether the Minister would care to say a word about how these fees would be decided and how much they might be. There is also the question of an appeal which also has to be paid for, and I should like to hear what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord on Second Reading made the point that he was a little concerned about the level of fees, and the effect of this amendment would be to require an estimate of these fees to be provided to an applicant. I think that I can give the noble Lord the assurance which he wants, although I do not think it is necessary, if I may say so, to accept the amendment.
It is the intention to levy fees according to a standard scale, and the assurance I give to the noble Lord is that the scale will be published when regulations on charging are made. The scale of fees will be updated from time to time as necessary and all changes will also be published. Therefore those who are liable to pay fees will know in advance, and that is the effect of the amendment. An applicant therefore will know the fees to be charged under the regulations in connection with any approval, licence, test or appeal. I hope the noble Lord will feel that my assurance meets the intention of the amendment.
Lord John-Mackie: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I think that it meets the intention of the amendment, but it is essential that any applicant should know beforehand what he has to pay. Of course, he also has the right of appeal. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Medicated animal feeding stuffs]:
6.1 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 13, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) This section shall not apply to mixing and consumption on the farm.").
The noble Lord said: This is an important amendment. At the present moment we are under pressure in the industry, particularly in the feedingstuffs line, and there is no question that if you have a good on-farm mixer et cetera you can save yourself quite a lot of money. It is essential that the clause and the regulations should not apply to the mixing and the consumption of that food on the farm. This seems to me to be a reasonable amendment which will not do any harm. The additives which a farmer may be putting into his home-mixed food will be controlled in the normal way and I do not see any danger at all, provided that it is consumed on the farm. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: Here, again, the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, raised this matter on Second Reading and if the Committee will forgive me I shall spend a moment or two in replying, because it is important and I should like to get on the record what the situation is as people are concerned. The noble Lord is quite right: people want to know exactly where they stand and the noble Lord himself will wish to hear the explanation.
With respect to the noble Lord, if this amendment were accepted there would be no control whatsoever on the incorporation by on-farm mixers of medicines in animal feed, because the amendment would remove from the scope of the new Section 40 all on-farm manufacture of medicated feedingstuffs. It would mean that the new Section 40 was more restricted in scope than the existing section which it will replace. Under the existing Section 40, an on-farm mixer may only incorporate a medicinal product into a feedingstuff in accordance with either the terms of the product licence or, in the case of a prescription-only medicine, a veterinary prescription.
I should like to emphasise, as I said on Second Reading, that these are enabling powers and there will be full consultation with all interested organisations, including, of course, the farmers' unions, before any regulations are made. The important subsections here are subsections (1) and (2) of the new Section 40. Subsection (1) gives Ministers power to prohibit the incorporation of a medicinal product in an animal feedingstuff unless conditions specified in the regulations are satisfied. The conditions are set out in subsection (2). I should like to make it clear that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (2) will not necessarily all apply in every case. The regulations will be drafted in such a way that an on-farm mixer will not have to be registered with the Pharmaceutical Society under subsection (2)(c). He will, however, have to comply with the conditions specified in subsection (2)(a) and (b) which are already contained in the existing Section 40.
Some on-farm mixers may, of course, choose to register in order to be able to obtain and incorporate products with a high level of medication. As I explained on Second Reading, it is our intention to ensure, through our existing powers in relation to licensing, that products with a high level of medication will be available only to those manufacturers who are capable of incorporating them into feed under carefully controlled conditions; in other words, manufacturers who are registered. Similarly, registered dealers
596
in medicated feed will be able to sell or supply products with a high concentration of medicine to registered manufacturers only. On-farm mixers who can meet the conditions for registration which will be contained in the proposed code of practice will be able to register, if they wish to do so. But on-farm mixers who are not registered will have access to products with a lower level of medication, which can safely be incorporated into feed with fewer controls on the mixing process.
I am sorry for the length of that explanation, but I hope it is enough to demonstrate that it is essential for on-farm mixers to remain within the scope of the new Section 40, and to show that we do not intend to restrict the activities of on-farm mixers unduly. However, we consider it essential that products with a high concentration of potent medicines are available only to those who are capable of ensuring that they are safely mixed into feed. I repeat the assurance that there will be full consultation before these new powers are exercised.
To go back to the beginning, if the noble Lord will forgive my saying so, the effect of the amendment is not acceptable because it would take on-farm mixers out of control, so far as mixers for animal feed are concerned, which would change even the existing law. I hope the noble Lord will feel that that would not be desirable. On the other hand, I also hope he may feel that it has been valuable that he has given an opportunity for me to put this explanation on the record.
Lord John-Mackie: I thank the noble Lord very much for that very full explanation. I can see the point that with their high potency some of these medicines may be misused. Of course, a farmer is not pevented from using lower potencies of medicines which are approved. But the point I was making was that most of these medicines are approved and the noble Lord seemed to be saying that it is not the medicine but the mixing of it that is the difficulty. Modern farm mixers will do as good a job—probably a better job—than a huge mixer in a feedmill, so the noble Lord has not made a very strong point. The incorporation of the medicine is what he was concerned with—not the medicine itself. I do not think any farmer would put in more than was necessary, because these medicines are expensive. All of the medicines that I have seen and used have had instructions on the label and the incorporation of them can be done just as well on the farm, if not better, as elsewhere. I do not want to press the point—
Lord Belstead: May I make the point that in the sort of case which the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, is speaking about—and he knows about such cases from personal experience—the answer is surely for the farmer who is doing on-farm mixing to become registered. That is open to him, as I endeavoured to make clear in my remarks.
Lord John-Mackie: I do not want to press the amendment and I take the point that the farmer can register. But I just felt that the subject should be aired, because it creates a drag on farming if they have to register and operate under regulations which have to

597
be applied on a big scale, but which do not need to be applied to farm mixing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
The Earl of Selkirk The Earl of Selkirk moved manuscript Amendment No. 12A:
Page 15, leave out lines 34 and 35 and insert—
("In this Act 'Ministers' means the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.").
The noble Earl The noble Earl said: I beg to move this manuscript amendment which I shall read, because it appears to me that the Bill is positively wrong. I am suggesting that the words on page 15, lines 34 and 35, should be omitted. These words are:
"In this subsection 'the Agriculture Ministers' has the same meaning as in the Medicines Act 1968".
I am proposing to put in much more straightforward words:
"In this Act 'Ministers' means the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food".
That is a true statement of what is happening.
I object for two reasons to what appears in the Bill. I know that draftsmen have their conventions, but those conventions are not always understood by the general public and the purpose of Bills is that they should be understood by the general public. My first point is that the subsection reads: "In this subsection". But it is not in this subsection; it is in this Bill that the word "Ministers" needs to be understood. Secondly, the Medicines Act 1968 includes the Minister of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. But as Northern Ireland is excluded from the Bill, it seems rather absurd that the Northern Ireland Minister should be included therein. Furthermore, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services is included, but he has nothing to do with this Bill. It seems to me that the public should know who are the Ministers concerned, so that if they want to write to them they know who to write to. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: I ought to take away this point and have a look at it. My noble friend has made what seems to be a formidable case, that the drafting could be clarified, an objective which we all want to achieve. On a manuscript amendment I do not believe that I ought to say anything, from the Government's point of view, which might change the drafting. If my noble friend feels that it is reasonable for me to take the amendment away in a constructive spirit, I shall be very happy to do so.
The Earl of Selkirk: I thank my noble friend for what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 18, line 1, after ("paragraph") insert ("1").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

Roads (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
6.12 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mackay of Clashfern.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ALPORT in the Chair.]
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy moved Amendment No. 97A:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause:
("Control of horses and cattle on roads.
The owner of any horse or cattle commits an offence if he allows it to be at large on a road without being in charge of a person able to exercise effective control of it.")
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move the amendment standing in my name. It would be for the convenience of the Committee if a connected amendment were considered at the same time. It is unnumbered in my copy, but it appears between Amendments Nos. 152 and 153 and was presumably, therefore, intended to be Amendment No. 152A.
Amendment No. 152A: Page 107, line 8, at end insert—
("Section 00 (allowing horses and Level 2. £50.") cattle to be on road without effective control).
The new clause which this amendment would introduce is to deal with the control of horses and cattle on roads. Over the years, considerable problems have been experienced in Scotland, in particular from riding schools where a suitable adult has not been in control of horses on the road with riders. A working party was set up in 1972, which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, will remember (it was set up when I was Secretary of State), to look into what legislation should replace the Burgh Police Acts when they came to an end. That working party made the following recommendation:
"It should be an offence to allow any horse or cattle to be at large in a public place without someone able to exercise control".
So far as I know, nothing has been done by governments since that recommendation on this point. Nothing was done on it, I understand, in the Civic Government (Scotland) Act and there appears to be nothing in the Bill. If horses are to be taken into this new clause, livestock, and therefore cattle, should be treated in the same way. Normally, however, a responsible person is in control of cattle when they are

599
on the road, because farmers want to make sure that they are protected.
It may be that the Government will say that this is too difficult an offence to monitor and police. I simply do not know. However, I would suggest that something needs to be done to improve the present situation. This proposal has been put to me by the Grampian Regional Council, who are especially concerned about it. I ask the Government to explain why they have not yet responded to this recommendation in the working party's report.
May I add a word or two about the drafting. To a layman like myself it may seem a little strange. It seems to me that, in the language of the parliamentary draftsman, cattle can be both plural and singular. Therefore it reads:
"The owner of any horse or cattle".
But later in the amendment it looks as though "cattle" is in the singular.
Another point is that the wording of the new clause reads:
"without being in charge of a person able to exercise effective control".
At first sight, it may look as though the horses are in charge of the riders. In many cases that may be so, but I can assure your Lordships that these two amendments have been prepared by parliamentary agents. Therefore I, as a layman, have to be guided by them as to whether it is the correct language for a Scottish Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I appreciate the intention behind the amendments which have been moved by my noble friend. Clause 95 of the Bill already provides for seizure and detention by the roads authority of any animal which is left on or strays on to a public road, unless that road runs through unenclosed countyside. I doubt whether my noble friend intended the amendment to apply in an area such as that. Clause 95 covers the situation where an animal is at large on the road with nobody being in charge of it. If an owner were so imprudent as to put a horse or cattle in charge of someone who was not able to exercise effective control, he might well lay himself open to a charge under the common law. I am aware that Clause 95 does not include an offence provision, but it provides for the authority to recover from the owner its expenses in seizing and detaining the animal. And administrative costs being what they are, the sums involved, and consequently the degree of deterrence, are likely to be much greater than the fine proposed in the noble Lord's second amendment.
There is another question. I have no complaint about the drafting of these amendments, but there is a question as to whether criminal responsibility should be put upon the owner of the animal. For example, it could be that the owner of the animal has left it in charge of some estate or stable which is perfectly competent to have charge of it, so far as he knows, and the animal is allowed to get out as a result of some failure on their part. There seems therefore to be a question as to whether it would be appropriate in any event to put this responsibility upon the owner.
For these reasons, we feel that the amendment which has been moved by my noble friend is probably
600
unnecessary. In the light of what I have said, I hope that he may feel able to reconsider the matter.
Lord Ross of Marnock: It is true to say that we touched on this subject during our debate last year on the Civic Government (Scotland) Bill. I remember making a brilliant speech on the subject of the offence created there of being drunk in charge of a horse. I made reference to Tam o'Shanter on that occasion, but I bow to the superior knowledge of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in this respect.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, for reminding us of that occasion. I am reminded of other occasions on which he also made brilliant speeches on that Bill. The speech to which he referred introduced the element of being drunk in charge, whereas this does not.
I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate for what he has said. It appears that the other clause to which he referred is intended to cover the situation to some extent. I assume that is how the recommendation of the 1972 working party is being dealt with. I hope that my noble and learned friend will confirm that point. I am sure that those who are interested in this matter will want to read what he said in relation to that other clause of the Bill before reaching any further conclusion. I am sure that they will also be grateful that the drafting, which did look a little strange to the layman, has nonetheless passed the Lord Advocate's eagle eye. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66 [Power of roads authorities to stop up roads by order]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 41, line 42, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert ("subscription (1) above").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if Amendment No. 98 is taken together with Amendment No. 99.
Amendment No. 99: Page 42, line 5, leave out ("(b)").
These are drafting amendments, and they are suggested because it seems to me quite unnecessary to detail and particularly specify subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) when it appears that making reference to subsection (1) only would be sufficient. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I appreciate the point which the noble Lord is making, but there is a substantial difference between what he has proposed and what we have proposed, and I shall try to explain that difference briefly. If the noble Lord will refer to Clause 66(1)(b), he will see that what is being contemplated is that the road,
"is or will become unnecessary".
If the noble Lord's amendments were given effect to, the possibility of dealing with a road which "will become unnecessary" will be prejudiced. The existing subsection is an important improvement on the situation because, under the law without that provision, it would mean that, if one were making a new stretch of road, one could only close up the old

601
stretch of road once the new stretch was in position and in use. It takes some time to make an order under that provision, whereas we wish to have the additional facility of making the arrangements in advance so that, when the new road comes into action, the old road that has become superseded and unnecessary can be taken out of action immediately. That will have some benefit, as I am sure the noble Lord will immediately appreciate. As I understand the amendments proposed, that is the difference between us. A substantial and important benefit will be damaged by the approach that is proposed.
Lord Ross of Marnock: These two amendments were the brainchild of my noble friend Lord Hughes, who is not here to argue them. It would be presumptuous on my part if I proceeded to cross swords with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in respect of this matter. I am prepared to examine what the noble and learned Lord has said because there are other stages in the Bill at which we can tackle the subject again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]
Clause 66 agreed to.
Clause 67 [Stopping up of dangerous access from public road to land or premises]:
6.25 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No.100:
Page 42, line 19, leave out ("a") and insert ("the")
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical amendment which is intended to correct what is a mistake: The word "a" should have been "the".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clause 69 [Provisions supplementary to sections 66 to 68]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 43, line 8, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Where a roads authority propose to make an order under the said section 66 or 67, then, before the expiry of 28 days from the date of the first public notification, in accordance with regulations under subsection (1) above, of the proposal to make the order, any person may object to it to the authority, and—

where the roads authority is a local roads authority—

if no such objection is made, or objection is made but withdrawn, they may confirm the order themselves; and

if such objection is made and not withdrawn, the Secretary of State shall determine the matter, and may confirm the order with or without modification or refuse to confirm it;

where the roads authority is the Secretary of State, he shall not make the order without having considered any such objection.")

The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to extend the application of Clause 69(2) to orders by the Secretary of State, as roads authority, under Clause 66. It will enable objections to
602
be made to such an order proposed by the Secretary of State and will require him to consider the objections before going on to make the order, if he decides that that is the course to take. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 70 agreed to.
Clause 71 [Temporary provision of substitute road]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 45, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) Without prejudice to section 112(1) of this Act, from the commencement of the making of a road through land under subsection (1) above until reinstatement of the land under subsection (3) above, rent shall by the roads authority he payable for so much of the land as is taken for the road; and the amount of that rent, and the person or persons to whom it is so payable, shall, in the absence of agreement between the roads authority and each person on whom they have served notice under subsection (2) above as regards the road, be determined by the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, whose decision on the matter shall be final.")
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment provides that where land is taken over by a roads authority to provide a temporary substitute road, rent is paid for the use of the land. This would in no way affect the right to compensation under Clause 112(1) for damage sustained by execution of the works. The amendment also provides for disputes as to the amount, or the proper recipient of the rent, to be determined by the Lands Tribunal for Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 72 and 73 agreed to.
Clause 74 [Discontinuation of operation of certain swing bridges]:
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 103:
Page 47, line 10, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: In the interests of speed, I am prepared not to move this amendment. We have taken far too long on this Bill!
[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
Clause 74 agreed to.
Clauses 75 and 76 agreed to.
Clause 77 [Transfer to Secretary of State of privately maintainable bridges carrying trunk roads]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 103A:
Page 49, line 13, at beginning insert ("Subject to section 119(1) of the Transport Act 1968 (ending of liability of certain Boards to make payments on being relieved of responsibility for bridges carrying trunk or special roads),").
The noble and learned Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I take with this amendment, Amendments Nos. 103B, 103CA and 103D.
Amendment No. 103B: Page 49, line 14, leave out ("the Secretary of State shall pay to the owner") and insert ("the owner shall pay to the Secretary of State").

603
Amendment No. 103CA: Page 49, line 18, after third ("the") insert ("extinguishment of any liability of the owner for the maintenance or improvement of the bridge and the Secretary of State shall pay to the owner such sum as may be so agreed or determined to represent the value, to the owner, of the").
Amendment No. 103D: Page 49, line 19, leave out ("Such arbitration") and insert ("Any arbitration under the foregoing provisions of this sub-section").
I should point out that Amendment No. 103CA is the same as Amendment No. 103C was, with the addition of the word "so" which has been omitted in the preparation.
These are purely drafting amendments. Amendments Nos. 103B and 103CA are required to ensure that the Secretary of State does not assume the liability to maintain a private bridge carrying a trunk road without an agreed financial settlement from the bridge owner. Amendment No. 103A is required to prevent the clause conflicting with Section 119 of the Transport Act 1968, which exempts the British Waterways Board from making such payments. Amendment No. 103D is consequential and will be required because there would be two references to arbitration if the earlier amendments are agreed; the existing wording could be construed as referring only to the second reference to arbitration.
I should mention also that these amendments have a bearing on Amendment No. 104 dealing with the point raised by noble Lords opposite that it might well be that, although there was revenue, there was not net revenue. We have now sought to deal expressly with the two possibilities; that something is an asset or that it is a liability according to which way the income and expenditure goes out. We have attempted to deal with that point expressly in these amendments. It is right that I should note that noble Lords raised that point for our consideration and that we have tried to take account of it. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: These amendments are eminently sensible and I am very grateful that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has covered the point. I fully support what he has done.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Is it to your Lordships' pleasure that I put Amendments Nos. 103B, 103CA and 103D together?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 103B, 103CA and 103D.
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 104 not moved.]
Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 78 [Transfer to Secretary of State of privately maintainable bridges carrying special roads]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 51, line 1, leave out ("the said section 7") and insert ("section 9 of this Act").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is necessary to correct a wrong cross-reference. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 79 to 81 agreed to.
Clause 82 [Control of builders' skips on road]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 54, line 18, after ("clearly") insert (", legibly").
The noble Lord said: This seems to be only a drafting amendment, but I think if we look at some of the vehicles, skips and so on seen on the roads we find that all sorts of devices are used to explain which particular contractor or owner they belong to. Although it may be clear, I think that it would be an improvement if it was also legible and understandable by ordinary people who do not have a handy reference to the various codes that are used in the industry. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: Before the noble and learned Lord replies, may I put a question on Clause 82? At line 20 on page 54, Clause 82(2) says:
"Such permission…in subsection (1)(a)…may be granted either unconditionally or subject to such conditions".
and when it mentions the conditions it says:
"and the conditions may in particular relate to".
It is not for me to interfere in a family debate about Scottish roads, except that something always happens to me on Scottish roads and so I watch them with the greatest of care whenever I have the privilege of being in that lovely country. I particularly wanted to ask the Minister about the siting and lighting of the skip. It does not look as though Clause 82 makes it mandatory for the skip to be lit; only that it may be lit if the local authority desires it. Because skips are so dangerous —and again because I have such danger on Scottish roads, sometimes simply because of the speed at which I go; I find that the police force in Scotland watch for English bishops, but that is a personal matter—may I ask, what about the lighting of skips?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The first thing I would like to say is that we regard "clearly" as including the kind of considerations the noble Lord mentioned. If a skip is clearly marked with the owner's name that means that it is clear to those who look at it what the owner's name is, and therefore I would suggest that "legibly" does not really add anything to this provision. I have had a look at the dictionaries and I think they confirm my earlier impression that that would be the situation; there is a good deal of common ground between "clearly" and "legibly".
Now if I might address myself to the question posed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, first of all may I say how much I welcome his participation in our consideration of this Bill because what happens in Scotland is of course vitally important for everyone, including the bishops. I should also say perhaps that the Scottish police are extremely impartial in their dealings with people, and therefore no particular favour is to be expected by an English bishop travelling in Scotland; on the other hand, I think it is also fair to claim that no special disfavour is likely to be meted out to him either.

605
So far as his question is concerned, what we have done is to give power to the local authority on the basis that they may grant permission for the use of the road by the builder's skip either unconditionally or subject to such conditions, including, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, the siting and lighting of the skip. We have done it on that basis because there is no question that if the skip was to be there overnight in the hours of darkness then it would be a reasonable condition that one would expect the local authority to impose. On the other hand, if it is going to be there an hour or two during the day any condition about lighting would be inappropriate.
Of course, the siting is also a question of circumstances; what one would impose in the way of conditions as to siting would also be a matter of discretion for the local authority. The right reverend Prelate will also be aware that Clause 58(1)(b) makes other provisions for the lighting of obstructions. I hope that in the light of these explanations the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Even before this came to my notice I had been taking a close look at some skips. Many of them are clearly marked, but not legibly; one cannot read who the owner is. That was the point I wished to cover. It may well be that one is clearly marked at the time it goes out and is put on the site, which may be on a pavement or just off a pavement. By the time loading up is finished—and many of these things lie there for two or three days—it has become illegible.
The right reverend Prelate has a very good point. I have seen a skip in the small quiet street in which I live lying there for about a week or so. In many cases mud is splattered over them, and although they are marked they are not marked so as to be legible all the time. That was the only point I wished to make. There may be other points we can raise on this on the Question that the clause stand part, more validly in respect of the point raised by the right reverend Prelate. So far as the amendment is concerned, it was designed to be helpful. As the Lord Advocate knows, I always agree with him when he is being sensible about these things, and if he is satisfied I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 82 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I return to a point which has been mentioned before and which I feel will come up on many other discussions on the Question that the clause stand part. This clause gives the roads authorities powers to control the siting and operating conditions of all types of builders' skips which are unlike their present powers. I understand Section 22 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970 limits skips being used for purposes other than building to only the roads authority. It seems a logical extension that all skips on the road be now the responsibility of the roads authority rather than the district authority.
The problem arises—and this is the point we shall continually come back to—that it will add, with all the other conditions in the Bill, additional expense and
606
responsibility to the regional authorities, who are in most cases the roads authorities.
I think that there will be perhaps substantial increases in the work load. It is not an easy matter. Inspectors or other highway people may be out on the roads representing the district, doing 101 other jobs and merely noticing these things as they pass, taking notes and getting the process going. The responsibility cannot just be taken from them with the assumption that money is being saved by transferring the responsibility to the roads authority and that it will all balance out.
Various other responsibilities will be put on the roads authority and the Bill will cause regional councils considerable extra expense. I have been approached by regional councils which are concerned about this. This is not perhaps a matter for the Lord Advocate in his judicial role but perhaps it is in his role as a Government Minister generally. He should be aware that the regional authorities are concerned about the amount of extra work that will be put on them as a consequence of the Bill.
Lord Drumalbyn: I believe that skips are not always used by their owners but are let out to others from time to time. Therefore, would it not be the person operating the skip who would require permission from the roads authority?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I shall draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. I have no doubt that such considerations are taken into account. We are doing what we can to make sure that the arrangements for distribution of the powers are as economical as possible. That is one of the reasons why my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston was asked to chair a committee to examine these matters.
I say to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn that the permission is not particularly to be given to the owner. It is not specified particularly who asks for the permission, but the identification of the skip is by reference to the owner. That seems a good arrangement. Whoever happens to be using the skip at the particular time, it is important that when the skip is found on the road it shall be easy to discover who owns it and who therefore has the ultimate responsibility for the way that it is being used.
Clause 82 agreed to.
Clauses 83 and 84 agreed to.
Clause 85 [Removal of projections which impede or endanger road users]:
6.43 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 55, line 42, leave out ("such").
The noble Lord said: I think that we could sensibly take Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 together with this.
Amendment No. 108: Page 55, line 43, leave out ("therefrom as") and insert ("which")
Amendment No. 109: Page 56, line 5, after ("payable") insert ("by the roads authority").
This is an effort to improve the drafting of the Bill. I am sorry to upset the draftsman who delights in using the phrase, "therefrom as", but I think that the subsection makes much more sense if we adopt my word. As an English teacher, I feel that if the expression, "any such projection", is used, there should have been a reference to a projection before that; but there is no mention made in the subsection of any projection before that. My suggested change would make the wording much more clear.
The same applies to the phrase:
"No compensation shall be payable".
I suggest that a phrase should be added to show by whom. That is the simple purpose of the amendment. As ever, we on this side of the Committee are trying to be helpful. We know that on this Bill the Lord Advocate needs all the help that he can get. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Noble Lords opposite can certainly take it that the Lord Advocate is always grateful to them for all the help they can give. I appreciate the spirit in which the amendments are moved. I appreciate the elegance of the noble Lord's drafting, but the difficulty is that if the drafting in Amendments Nos. 107 and 108 is given effect to, there is no connection necessarily between the projection and the building. The responsibilities accrue according to the building which is owned or occupied. Therefore, I think it is necessary to specify some connection between the building and the projection which is the source of the trouble.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock: The phrase:
"and is specified in the notice",
is already in the clause.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: But what is specified in the notice must be a projection from the particular building. It is that concept—the connection between the projection and the building—which is required as the basic power, apart altogether from the notice, which the noble Lord's amendment does not leave clearly in the clause.
I think that Amendment No. 109 is not necessary for this reason. The amendment is being suggested to subsection (3). Subsection (3) plainly refers to compensation. "payable under subsection (2)". When one looks at subsection (2), it is plain that the person paying the compensation is the roads authority. That is the obligation of subsection (2).
Much as I appreciate the spirit in which these amendments are moved, we have considered them carefully and have concluded that on this occasion the present drafting is to be preferred. I hope that the noble Lord may feel persuaded by that.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am not persuaded. I should like to argue the matter out, but this is not the Scottish Grand Committee. May I tell the Government that if ever they get this Bill into the Scottish Grand Committee in another place they will never get it out. That is not a warning, because I am not there now, but others have followed on.
I disagree with the noble and learned Lord in respect
608
of the wording of subsection (1). In respect of subsection (3), I was making it absolutely clear as to where responsibility would lie and clarifying the phrase:
"No compensation shall be payable",
by making it clear to whom that referred—the authority. When I read the Bill I see the number of otiose phrases in it. The amendment has much more to commend it than have many of the other things that we have in the Bill and will be putting into it. But at this late hour of the night I do not see why we should prolong the argument. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, and I shall not move the two succeeding amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 108 and 109 not moved.]
Clause 85 agreed to.
Clauses 86 and 87 agreed to.
Clause 88 [Prevention of danger to road from nearby vegetation and fences etc. or from retaining walls being inadequate]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I have to inform your Lordships that if Amendment No. 109A is agreed to, then I cannot call Amendment No. 110.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 109A:
Page 57, line 10, leave out from ("with") to second ("a") in line 11 and insert—
("—(i) road users' view of the road;
(ii) the light from a public lamp; or
(iii) ")
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 109A is intended to deal with the point that is raised in Amendment No. 110 by noble Lords opposite, by making it clear that the subsection embraces obstruction of the lamps and signs as well as interference with them. The idea is to prevent obstructing, for example, the lamp in such a way that it spoils the effect of that lamp in lighting the road. I think that the grammar and sense is improved by putting it this way. At the same time we have embraced the point which is made by noble Lords opposite in Amendment No. 110. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am prepared to agree to this amendment. I think it is an improvement. The point that also concerned me when I put down Amendment No. 110 is that very often the offender is the local authority parks department which allows trees to overhang roads, completely shrouding the light from the lamps that it has put up, which are then not effectively lighting the roads. I know of roads where there are lights on only one side, and the local authority fails properly to trim the trees that overhang the road. I have even seen people having to walk on the carriageway because of bushes and so forth overhanging, not from the gardens of private dwelling-houses, but from public parks. I hope that this point will be taken notice of not only by other people who are concerned, but also by the local authorities themselves, so that they meet their obligations to pedestrians and motorists in regard to branches and bushes that obscure and overhang.
The Earl of Selkirk: I should like briefly to support what the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has said. I have been trying to work in a certain idea which I should like to mention. In many cases local authorities dig ditches and then leave the spoil on the side of the road. I have tabled one or two amendments to deal with the point, though I am not sure that they are in the right place. In this part of the Bill all the emphasis has been on the ill-deeds of frontagers, and so I think that the noble Lord is perfectly right in that a certain obligation should be placed on local authorities. I know of cases where on narrow roads there has been built up from the spoil of ditches—which no doubt are necessary—a considerable bank which interferes with the view down the road. I do not think that that point is covered, and I should like my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate to look into it to see whether a duty can be imposed on the local authority to ensure that it does not restrict or obstruct vision in this way. I have down an amendment which roughly covers the point, though, as I say, I am not sure that it is in the right place, and I should like my noble and learned friend to consider putting it in the most appropriate part of the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I certainly take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and my noble friend Lord Selkirk have made—that it behoves authorities which have powers to keep other people in order to make quite certain that their own parks, trees, and shrubs are in proper order. I have no doubt that, if they failed in their duty to see to that, they would certainly lay themselves open to questions at common law if damage resulted.
With regard to my noble friend's concern about the view being obstructed by the placing of spoil on the roadside, I think that we discussed the point at the last proceedings of the Committee, and I agreed to look at it in detail. We are in course of doing that, and I should not like to take the matter further at the moment, though I shall certainly let my noble friend know when I have completed my consideration of it. I think that some of the amendments are still to be dealt with, though really we dealt with them all effectively on the earlier occasion. I am grateful for what has been said, and I am glad of support for the amendment
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 110 not moved.]
Clause 88, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 89 [Restriction on planting of trees etc. near carriageway]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 58, line 35, leave out ("48 or").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting amendment to make it clear that the roads authority does not require permission from itself for its own work. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 89, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 90 [Protection of road users from dangers near a road]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 59, line 5, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: The amendment has been put down because the subsection strikes me and my noble friends as being extremely wide, giving very great powers to a roads authority. It would be wrong to let the subsection go through without at least registering the point that the powers are extremely wide and if not properly and sensitively used could bring about much unhappiness and could perhaps result in people being greatly disadvantaged. I should like to draw the attention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to the fact that the powers are very wide. I should also like to have from him an assurance that the powers have been looked at very carefully and that there are enough safeguards for people who will perhaps be intruded upon by the powers contained in the subsection. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: As the noble Lord has said, subsection (1) of the clause contains a fairly wide power. It is essentially a power to provide for road safety and, I think all your Lordships would agree, it is most important that land adjacent to a road, in particular unfenced land, is maintained so as to avoid danger being caused on it to road users.
Generally speaking, the Bill does not concern itself with land beyond the road boundary, except in cases of danger or obstruction. There are other provisions of the Bill to deal with specific dangers; for example, the clause that deals with dangerous vegetation, fences and walls on adjacent land, and Clause 80, which deals with obstruction of view. But they do not cover all possible circumstances where a roads authority may need to Act for the protection of road users. For example, dangerous machines, holes, or heaps of rubbish—to which my noble friend Lord Selkirk referred—that are not adequately fenced could constitute a danger to the road users. So I believe that it is necessary to have a power of this kind. It has its sources in the act of 1878 and in the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892.
When I was looking at the noble Lord's amendment suggesting that the subsection should be deleted, I wondered whether he had in mind the part of it which, in regard to the steps taken by the roads authority, provides that the authority,
"may recover the expenses reasonably incurred in so doing from the owner of the land".
and whether that might be regarded as a point that should not go completely unmarked. Looking at the clause as a whole, I have wondered whether it would not be right to provide an appeal to the owner of the land in respect of that matter in the same way as is at present provided for subsection (2). So I respond to the noble Lord's amendment by saying that it has led us to consider the point, and we shall consider further whether it would not be right to extend the provisions to allow for an appeal to the sheriff in relation to an attempt by the roads authority to recover expenses in connection with the matter. My noble friend Lord Selkirk also has down an amendment to the clause, dealing with a more specific point.
The Earl of Selkirk: Perhaps I may say a few words at this stage, since it may save me from having to move the next amendment. I took a different view from that of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. I thought it very important that the local authorities should be compelled to take action. The words that I considered important were,
"constitutes a danger to road users".
I have a picture of a danger to road users, and if there is such a danger, it must be removed, and it is a proper duty of the local authority jolly well to see that it is removed. I propose that the word "may" should be changed to the word "shall". I agree that it involves a slightly different interpretation from that mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, but I would say that, if the matter in question is a danger to the road, it should be removed, and that should be a clear duty on the local authority.
I do not want to press the point unduly, but I hope that my noble and learned friend will be good enough to look at it and see what can be done. The danger should not be regarded merely as something that could be removed or as something which the authority is free to remove; it is something that must be removed, if that is what is meant by the words. I see that the subsection refers to matters near a road, and perhaps it could be recast to make quite clear whether the danger is a possible danger. If it is a possible danger, that is a different thing. But, if it is a positive danger to road users, it must be removed, and it should be clearly stated that that is the duty of the local authority. I should be very grateful if my noble and learned friend is able to consider possible rewording of the subsection.
7 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Most certainly, I can see the force of substituting for the word "may" the word "shall" as proposed in my noble friend's amendment No. 113. I do not think that in its practical effect it would make a substantial difference at all because the roads authority, of course, are the persons who have, in the first case, to form the opinion that there is a danger. When you are in this situation where it is a matter of first forming an opinion and then giving them power to take action, it seems appropriate that it should be a power to take action rather than a matter requiring an expression such as "shall". I do not think that there is much difference in effect between the two in this context. I agree with my noble friend that this power is an extremely important one and that where the roads authority have a power of this kind, there will be an implied duty to exercise it where danger actually exists.
Lord Drumalbyn: I should like to ask whether the word "anything" in line 5 would include an animal. For example, an animal that is tied up might cause a child on a bicycle to swerve into a line of traffic.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I think that we are dealing, at the moment, with Clause 90.
Lord Drumalbyn: The first line says:
"If, in the opinion of the roads authority, anything which is on land"—
and so on.
Lord Ross or Marnock: I apologise to the noble Lord. I have a thing about things. I consider that it is a matter of inadequate draftsmanship of words when we resort to use of the word "thing". We come to this again. I missed the opportunity by not being here on the last occasion that we considered the Bill. This is a fallback power. The authority use this power only when they cannot use any other power under any other clause. That being the case, it is a very important power and a very sweeping power. It is the roads authority which consider the thing a danger. There is no notice to the owner of the land, as I read it. The roads authority just go in and do it. They do what they think is necessary and then they charge the owner of the land.
I was a little surprised that noble Lords who have more interest in land than I have should not have spotted the nature of the power that is taken here. I do not know that the Government would get away with it anywhere else. You might get away with it in the House of Lords, but I doubt if it would happen anywhere else where people take a keener interest in the acutal words of the Bill and the powers that are being given. There is no reference to the powers being given only in an emergency. They are to be available at any time. This is a very dangerous power. I am glad that, in respect of expense that might be passed on to an individual, the power of appeal is being considered by the Lord Advocate. I would prefer him to tighten up the whole of this particular power.
The Bill mentions all sorts of other things where the roads authority can take action after having given notice, but this one is very dangerous. I agree that the word "shall" should make this a mandatory power. In an emergency, you cannot wait for that kind of thing. It should not be tied up with phrases such as "in the opinion of the roads authority". We have had a few emergencies this past fortnight although I do not think that there were many English bishops skating around the roads of Scotland at that time. I would gladly have met one on the Fenwick Moor the other night. The right reverend Prelate always goes at the right time. However, I consider this a most important clause. I am glad that it has been noted by the noble Earl and others.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 59, line 27, leave out ("thing") and insert ("barrier").
The noble Lord said: Here, we come to things. This is a hangover from a long list of amendments of mine considered just over a week ago where the dictionary of the draftsman had failed him. The result was the use of the word "thing" at least five or six times in one clause. My amendment here is in relation to "thing". I suggest that we use instead the word "barrier". It is to get rid of this seeming inadequacy when walls, window-sills, spikes, broken glass and barbed wire and similar devices are all barriers. The word "barrier" has been used by the Government in other parts of the Bill. I consider that it would be much better here than the word "thing".
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I understand the noble Lord's aversion to the word "thing" if a better word can be found. Unfortunately, I doubt whether the word "barrier" is appropriate here because it has to cover all the matters—I almost said "things"—that are mentioned in subsection (2). The noble Lord will see reference to "a wall or window-sill". It would be inappropriate to describe a window-sill as a barrier. Therefore, the word "barrier" does not seem appropriate.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 90 agreed to.
Clause 91 [Power to fill in roadside ditches etc.]:
The Earl of Selkirk moved Amendment The Earl of Selkirk moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 60, line 4, after ("ditch") insert ("or the spoil therefrom").
The noble Earl said: We are back on the same subject. There is a complication. I am thinking really about spoil on the verge of the road. According to this Bill, the verge of a road is the road. We therefore have this slight complication. The clause states:
"If it appears to the roads authority that a ditch on land adjoining or lying near to a public road constitutes a danger".
I am talking about obstructions or anything that interferes with the vision of a road actually on the verge. This, because it is part of the road, is an obstruction of the road.
The amendment does, I think, make sense by adding the words "or the spoil therefrom", because spoil can also be an obstruction. It is, technically speaking, part of the road according to the definition of the Bill. It may be argued that it does not apply to this clause. I have spoken about this enough. It is an important point and I hope that my noble and learned friend can see that it is effectively incorporated.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: When we considered this before I said I would look at the matter carefully and, as I remarked a few minutes ago, we have not completed our consideration. My noble friend will perhaps allow me some further time for consideration.
The Earl of Selkirk: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 91 agreed to.
Clause 92 [Deposit of mud from vehicles on roads]:
On Question, Whether Clause 92 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: There is a small point to which my attention has been drawn. This is perhaps the only time I can raise it because I was too late to put down an amendment. On clause stand part, the Lord Advocate will perhaps be kind enough to take note of what I say and to look at the matter. The description of the clause is "Deposit of mud from vehicles on roads". However, line 29 refers to mud dropped or deposited on carriageways. That would seem to exclude the pavement or the footpath. It has been drawn to my attention that perhaps it would solve the problem—because it is just as dangerous and
614
distressing to have mud on the footpath as it is to have it on the carriageway—if "road" were substituted for "carriageway", that would be more satisfactory in every way and would take in everything. At this stage I can only ask t
he noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to take note of it.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: It seems to me that the noble Lord has suggested an improvement, and he has kindly allowed me time to consider it, and I would like to do that. But at first sight it would seem to be an improvement and I am most grateful to the noble Lord for raising the point.
Clause 92 agreed to.
Clauses 93 to 96 agreed to.
Clause 97 [Damage to roads etc.]:
7.11 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 64, line 7, after ("or") insert ("reasonable").
The noble Lord said: Clause 97 lists a number of events that shall be construed as offences provided the person who commits them does so:
"without lawful authority or excuse".
I do not presume that the word "lawful" covers the word "excuse". If they have an excuse it might be a good excuse or it might be a bad excuse. I suggest that to make it fairly foolproof it should be "reasonable excuse". I am suggesting that we insert the word "reasonable". It may well be that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will want a long time to consider the matter. I am prepared to give him two minutes. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The noble Lord has kindly given me considerably longer than that to consider the matter, because I saw the amendment shortly after he put it down. It seems to me, with respect, to be an extremely good suggestion and I am very happy to accept it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 64, line 12, after ("sign") insert (", slogan").
The noble Lord said: I think that this provision could be improved by adding the word "slogan" in case it is not covered by any other words that are catalogued in respect of marks. The noble and learned Lord will know quite well what I have in mind in respect of this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I have certainly considered the matter. Whatever might be described as a slogan is fairly well covered by the provision that we already have in the Bill and, of course, if one were to make a collection of letters an offence, one might be slightly complicating the matter. If each sign or mark constitutes an offence it would probably be safer. So in this situation I would prefer to leave the drafting as it is, and I hope that the noble Lord will, perhaps, on reconsideration feel able to agree with me.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am prepared to reconsider the matter, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will reconsider it as well. What we have at present is:
"paints or otherwise inscribes or affixes upon the surface of a road or upon a tree, traffic sign, milestone, structure or works on or in a road, a picture, letter, sign or other mark".
It is not necessarily a mark. It may well be something made on paper, and very often when it is made on paper it is a slogan. The noble and learned Lord has seen them as well as I have. Why not be clear about it? However, if the noble and learned Lord is not satisfied at the moment I will think again about it myself and about the statement he has made. There are other stages of the Bill to go through. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved manuscript Amendment No. 118A:
Page 64, line 14, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
("(c) by lighting a fire within, or by permitting a fire for which he is responsible to spread to within, 30 metres of a road, damages the road or endangers traffic on it;".
The noble Lord said: This is an afterthought that has been suggested from a very authorative source and it is one with which I concur. It suggests that we leave out paragraph (c) and insert:
"by lighting a fire within, or by permitting a fire for which he is responsible to spread to within, 30 metres of a road, damages the road or endangers traffic on it".
The endangering of traffic on the road is something which I felt had been missed out. These words are much more felicitous and I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving this manuscript amendment. He earlier put forward the idea that not only damage to the road should be taken into account, but also danger to traffic on the road. It was fairly apparent that he had in mind the kind of danger that comes from fire adjoining the road. That led on to thinking that that kind of danger can arise not only when someone starts the fire within 30 metres of the road, but when someone starts a fire further from the road and it burns towards the road. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for moving this amendment which seems to cover that concept very fully.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 119 is therefore eliminated. The next amendment is Amendment No. 120.
[Amendment No. 119 not moved.]
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 64, line 17, after ("wall") insert (", barrier").
The noble Lord said: This is a similar type of amendment, to ensure that all the things that the Government have mentioned which might be damaged or interfered with, shall be covered. The amendment adds the word "barrier" to the list, so that it concludes with
"post, rail, wall, barrier or fence".
The noble and learned Lord will find that the word is used elsewhere in such a list. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Again, in our view this is an improvement which noble Lords have suggested, and I am very grateful to them for bringing this amendment forward. I am happy to advise that the amendment should be accepted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 97, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I should like to raise a very small point. It has been brought to my attention that the only things that have been omitted and which we see on the roads every day are lighting columns. If we look at paragraphs (b) and (d) we see all sorts of things, such as:
"a tree, traffic sign, milestone, structure or works on or in a road".
Lighting columns may be included in that list, but it seems as though they are blindingly obviously things that have been omitted, as was pointed out to me by somebody else. I would be very grateful if the noble and learned Lord would look at the situation with a view to adding them or reassuring us that lighting columns are included in the more general descriptions.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Certainly I will be happy to look at the matter. My first instinct would be to say that they probably are covered, but I would like to look at the matter.
Clause 97, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 98 to 101 agreed to.
Clause 102 [Further provision as regards acquisition of land for construction, improvement, etc. of public roads]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 66, line 4, after ("preserving") insert ("or improving").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seems to be an improvement on the original wording. It may be desirable to acquire land to improve the road, not merely to preserve the road. There may be a necessity' to improve it, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will see that certainly nothing is lost by adding "or improving". It gives a great deal more scope for the reconstruction and development of public roads. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I respectfully agree with the noble Lord that the addition of the words "or improving" is an improvement and I am happy to recommend acceptance of the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 102, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 103 to 112 agreed to.
Clause 113 [Determination of disputes as to compensation]:
7.21 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No.122:
Page 73, line 10, after ("103") insert ("112,").
The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 112 enables a person who sustains damage from execution of works under certain provisions in the Bill to recover compensation. Disputes may arise over such compensation and, by adding Clause 112 to other clauses listed in Clause 113, the amendment provides a means of determining such disputes under the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 113, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 114 to 117 agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 123:
After Clause 117, insert the following new clause:
Saving for obligation to obtain planning permission.
(".Subject to any express provision to the contrary, nothing in this Act authorises the carrying out of any development of land for which permission is required by virtue of section 20 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 (development requiring planning permission) and which is not authorised by permission granted or deemed to be granted under or for the purposes of Part III of that Act.").
The noble and learned Lord said: The powers provided in the Bill are not intended to override requirements to obtain planning permission, unless specifically so stated in the Bill. For the avoidance of doubt, however, the amendment provides an appropriate saving clause, making that absolutely plain. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 118 and 119 agreed to.
Clause 120 [Miscellaneous summary offences]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No.124:
Page 77, line 23, after ("rider") insert ("or some other person").
The noble and learned Lord said: As it happens, this amendment has exactly the same effect as Amendment No. 125, the amendment on the Marshalled List to be proposed by noble Lords opposite. We noticed this point independently and I am very grateful to noble Lords opposite for bringing this forward. We entirely accept the view in their amendment. Therefore, as it just happens to come first, I beg to move Amendment No. 124.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate would clear my mind. What is the difference between "some other person" and "another person"? The noble and learned Lord prefers the words "some other person" rather than the words "another person". Perhaps he could explain this just to help me in my legal education.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I am always delighted to help the noble Lord. The only reason I prefer this amendment is that it happened to come first. We tabled this amendment and the noble Lord tabled his. If I had known of the noble Lord's amendment before we tabled this amendment, I should have been perfectly content with his.
The Earl of Selkirk: I should like to ask my noble and learned friend one question. There used to be a convention, or a rule, that one could lead a horse on the righthand side of the road. I presume that this was due to the fact that horses are normally led on the lefthand side. They can be led on the righthand side quite well too. Is there anything to support that rule? Does my noble and learned friend know of any such rule that still exists? Certainly as a young man many years ago I learned that that was a permissible way of travelling. If my noble and learned friend has never heard of it, it is probably pure myth.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I should not like to suggest that there is anything mythical about it. It seems to be a sensible suggestion. However, just at this moment I should not like to give chapter and verse for it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 125 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 126:
[Printed earlier: col. 653.]
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is one of a series of amendments to which I spoke earlier dealing with the amendments necessary to give effect to the provision of cycle tracks. This amendment provides an offence in respect of a person who parks a motor vehicle wholly or partly on a cycle track. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 78, line 10, after ("any") insert ("proper")
The noble Lord said: This is a very small amendment. The paragraph reads:
"Where materials, tools, machinery or other equipment—(a) have been deposited in any proper place for use by the roads authority in constructing or maintaining a road".
That may not be a strong enough word. However, although I have great admiration for road builders, occasionally they do silly things, and I think it is important that we emphasise the fact that before materials or anything else to be used for construction or repairs are placed on a road care should be taken that they are put in the proper place. That is actually emphasised in the Bill itself. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Of course, the general structure of the Bill suggests that it would not be right, for example, to put such materials in a place where they obstructed the road, and so on. This particular provision, in which the amendment is proposed, is for an offence. It is provided at line 15 on page 78 of the Bill that:
"a person who without reasonable excuse takes away, or displaces, the materials, tools, machinery or equipment commits an offence."
Therefore, "without reasonable excuse" would appear to cover that matter, and if it was a question of displacing or moving the materials from a wrong place, the person would not be a guilty of an offence.

619
So we think that it is difficult to specify what is a "proper" place (and the noble Lord has indicated this). The reasonableness of the action taken to move the materials is perhaps the most satisfactory test. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: This matter is rather difficult, because it might well be that if you put something in a place that is not a proper place, you are giving the person who has taken it away an excuse to get away with the offence. It might be quite important equipment. I have known of people taking away tractors, cranes and other machinery. If they can say, "That was not the proper place for it; it did not look as though it belonged to anyone", they might get away with it. Therefore, I think that we should try to cover this aspect. Valuable property and valuable materials are being taken away, and it may well be that we are giving justification for taking them away if they have been left in a place where it is not sensible or proper to leave them in the first instance.
However, we shall not press this amendment. We are all anxious not to offend the Government Chief Whip; I know how concerned he is about Scottish business. I do not propose to go further with this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 120, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Denham: My Lords, after those soft words from the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, I think that the best I can do is to offer your Lordships an adjournment because we seem to have reached the hour for one. Through the usual channels, the suggestion is that we should adjourn for three-quarters of an hour until 8.15 p.m. My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.15 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.30 until 8.15 p.m.]
Clauses 121 to 134 agreed to.
Clause 135 [Regulations, orders and schemes]:
[Amendments Nos. 128 and 129 not moved.]
Clause 135 agreed to.
Clauses 136 to 142 agreed to.
Clause 143 [Interpretation]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 89, line 36, leave out ("'cycle track', 'footpath' and 'footway'")
The noble and learned Lord said: Perhaps I may take with Amendment No. 130 Amendments Nos. 131 and 133.
Amendment No. 131: Page 90, line 2, at end insert ("'cycle track' shall be construed in accordance with subsection (2) below:")
Amendment No. 133: Page 90, line 7, at end insert ("'footpath' and 'footway' shall be construed in accordance with subsection (2) below;")
The purpose of these amendments is to respond to observations made in the Second Reading debate that the definitions of "cycle track", "footpath" and "footway" in Clause 143(2) are difficult to locate. These terms are already mentioned in subsection 143(1) but are associated there with a "carriageway". Therefore, what we have done is to take them out of that and put them into an alphabetical order. It is hoped that the separate references in alphabetical order provided by the amendments will be an improvement and also provide a clear signpost to subsection (2). I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I think I am content with this. It is an improvement. I think the person who mentioned this was one of the Liberal Peers. There is no Liberal Peer present, so I take it that they have seen the amendments and they agree with them. I think it is an improvement.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 131:
[Printed above.]
The noble and learned Lord said: I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 90, leave out line 3.
The noble Lord said: This is something I felt strongly about a long time ago, that "days" had to mean "clear days" We have not had very many clear days in Scotland over this past month. I am still not satisfied with the explanation that was given to me at an earlier stage by the Lord Advocate as to why we need to define "days" as "clear days". I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I have given the explanation. I do not think I have anything to add to what I said before about it. There is certainly indication in judicial dicta that where one is talking about "days" and one means the whole of the day it is wise to say so, and that "clear days" is a good way of doing that, and that is the one we have chosen. I think I cannot say much more.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I hate to say it, but the explanation is not very clear. But then, "clear" has another meaning. I am sad to realise that the lawyers in Scotland and the legal luminaries in Scotland cannot define a day without having the word "clear" in front of it. It does not say very much for them—or it tells you a lot about them. I am not going to press the matter now. I hope it does not mean that we have to go through every piece of legislation we have ever had in order to redefine "day" or "days". I can think of quite a lot of legislation where we never felt it necessary to put in "clear days", but it may well be that the lawyers in Scotland are becoming more confused by the kind of legislation that they are getting and having to contend with. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 133:
[Printed above.]
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ross of Marnock Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 134:
[Printed earlier: col. 683]
The noble Lord said: This is, I think, another of Lord Hughes' amendments. He was very concerned about the definition of "frontager". I will move it formally and listen to the reply from the Government.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: This does go back to discussions that we had earlier about the matter. I think it would not be appropriate to have this amendment in the Bill as it stands at the moment, but I have undertaken to Lord Hughes to consider various matters that he mentioned and I shall certainly indicate to him in due course what conclusion I have reached in the light of that reconsideration.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 91, line 19, leave out ("and a proposed road").
The noble and learned Lord said: As presently drafted the definition of "road" in the Bill, except where specified to the contrary, includes "a proposed road". Having looked over the matter with the Bill in its present state, we consider that this definition is not now necessary, and that it is therefore wise to delete "a proposed road" from the definition where the Bill does deal with proposed roads separately. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendments Nos. 136 and 137:
Page 91, line 27, leave out ("constructed") and insert ("provided").
line 28, leave out ("(a)").
The noble and learned Lord said: I will take Amendments Nos. 136 and 137 together. These are drafting amendments necessary to ensure that the Secretary of State is defined as the roads authority for special roads; not only for those which he constructs but also for those which he provides by appropriation or transfer of existing roads. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment Nos. 138:
Page 92, line 9, after ("section") insert ("or section 198(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is essentially a drafting amendment which makes good an omission in the definition of a trunk road in Clause 143. Section 198(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 empowers the Secretary of State to provide or improve any road in connection with development and provides that where the Secretary of State is the roads authority for such a road, it is to be a trunk road.
622
Consequently it should be included in the definition of "trunk road". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendments Nos. 139 to 144:
Page 92, line 25, at beginning insert ("For the purposes of this Act").
line 27, leave out ("in this Act referred to").
line 28, leave out ("as a footway") and insert ("a 'footway'").
line 30, leave out ("as a footpath") and insert ("a 'footpath'").
line 32, leave out ("so referred to as a cycle track") and insert ("a 'cycle track'").
line 34, leave out ("so referred to as a carriageway") and insert "a 'carriageway'").
The noble and learned Lord said: With the leave of your Lordships, I beg to move Amendment Nos. 139 to 144 en bloc.
These amendments are all intended to clarify the definition of "road" in Clause 143(2). The terms "footway", "footpath", "cycle path", and "carriageway" are included in the general term "road", and we want to make plain what each of these expressions is intended to mean in the Bill. We think that the present arrangement is not as clear as it perhaps might be, and I believe that doing it in the way we now propose makes it plainer. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I do not know how the lawyers will regard this but I know how the general public will regard it: as a piece of absolute nonsense; not just this but many other aspects of it. But if the Lord Advocate, the head of the legal profession, or the leader of that band in respect of this kind of thing, is satisfied, who am I to put the layman's point of view!
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 145:
[Printed earlier: col. 653.]
The noble and learned Lord said: This is the last of the amendments which are referred to under the general heading of "cycle tracks", and this is the amendment which makes provision for the order which is required in this connection. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The only thing I have to say about this business is that the heading of this clause is "Interpretation", and in an Act of Parliament where we have an interpretation clause it is not usual to have powers. I am just wondering whether or not during this stage and the next the Lord Advocate will look to see whether he should put powers, if powers are necessary, anywhere else, but not in the interpretation clause.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I am certainly happy to look at the point that the noble Lord has mentioned.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 143, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 144 [Consequential provision]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 93, line 22, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").
The noble Lord said: This is a very small point. It is really substituting on page 93, line 22, an "and" for "or". It would read:
"transitional or supplementary provision as appears to him to be necessary and proper—".
I think it is a fairly small amendment, and I hope the Lord Advocate will agree that it is an intelligent one.
I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The idea of this provision is to give the Secretary of State power, in effect, to make incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provisions by order.
The provisions that he can make, as provided by the Bill, are such as appear to him in that light to be necessary or proper. If the amendments are necessary, then it is really implied that without them there would be something wrong with the statutory provisions. They have to be made, but it is also usual to provide that even if amendments are not necessary in that strict sense, if it is correct to do so it should be done. I think it is the usual form to allow consequential provisions of this kind to be provided for by order where they are necessary or proper, and I suggest it would be in accordance with the usual practice to have the word "or" in as the present draft proposes.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I must say that I do not think I have previously noticed the Lord Advocate being quite so unsure of himself in this Bill. I felt that he was not altogether happy himself with the explanation he gave, and I wonder whether he would think that just because it has always been considered as correct, necessary or proper that it should be done, now might be the time to reconsider it. I felt that he was unsure about it. While he seems to be very familiar with it in other statutes, it appeared tome that he was saying, "Why the hang have we got this in in any case? Why do we not do it as the word suggests?" I am sure there is more comfort in adding something which has always been done, but I would be most grateful if he takes this away to reconsider how important it really is to substitute this word "and" for "or".
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I am sorry if I gave the impression that I was not as sure of myself as I usually am. I certainly have no hesitation in advising the Committee that the Bill as it stands is the correct form in relation to this particular clause.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 144 agreed to.
Clause 145 agreed to.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 147:
After Clause 145, insert the following new clause: General adaption of subordinate legislation etc.
(" . Without prejudice to section 144 or 145 of this Act and except where the context otherwise requires or the Secretary of State by order under either of those sections otherwise provides, in any order, scheme, regulation or other instrument which before 1st January 1985 was made under or confirmed by a public general or local Act and in any local Act passed before or during the same session as this Act (such order, scheme, regulation, instrument or local Act not being an enactment which has ceased to have effect by virtue of subsection (1) of the said section 145) any reference—

(a) to a street, to a highway or to a road shall be construed as a reference to a road within the meaning of this Act;

(b) to a turnpike road, to a public carriage road, to a public highway, to a maintainable highway, to a public street or to a public road shall be construed as a reference to a public road within the meaning of this Act;

(c) to a private street or to a private road shall be construed as a reference to a private road within the meaning of this Act;

(d) to a prospective public road or to a prospective public street shall be construed as a reference to a road which is declared likely to become a public road in a declaration made by the local roads authority under Schedule 2 to the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 and is registered in the register kept by them under paragraph 2 of that Schedule;

(e) to a highway authority or to a street authority shall be construed as a reference to a roads authority within the meaning of this Act:

(f) to a roadway or to a carriageway shall be construed as a reference to a carriageway within the meaning of this Act; and

(g) to a cycle track, to a footpath or to a footway shall be construed in accordance with this Act.")

The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment provides that references in subordinate and local legislation passed before the enactment of this Bill, where expressions such as "street", "turnpike road" and "highway authority", and so on, are used, should be interpreted in accordance with the system used in this Bill. In my submission that is the correct way to proceed.
Your Lordships will appreciate that such references in the primary legislation are being dealt with, particularly, in Schedule 8, and each Act that requires to be amended is specified there. We have further amendments to deal with that. As far as subordinate and local legislation is concerned, it does not seem appropriate to do it in that way and it is best to have a general scheme such as this. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Advocate says that it would not be appropriate to deal with it in any other way but this one, may I say that this is a belated discovery because this is the Committee stage of the Bill. If it were the only appropriate way to deal with it, I would have thought it might have been put in the Bill at the start. What he says is "appropriate" is the only possible way to deal with it. I want to congratulate the draftsmen for having found a formula to get round a difficult piece of legislation. I am sure that they are probably looking at all they have done in Schedule 8, and all they intend to do in Schedule 8, and saying, "I wish we had thought of this earlier".
I will say a word or two about Schedule 8 when we reach it; but I congratulate them on having found this formula and having found it just in time. It is a bit of

625
a liberty, but we are covering many private Acts and many pieces of legislation that have hitherto been forgotten, that we have this overall piece of comprehensive drafting to bring them in within the meaning of the Bill. I shall not object to it but I shall congratulate them on it. I have no doubt they will find mistakes in it, probably before the next stage; but that is the nature of the Bill. I do not know how many draftsmen have died of heart failure or from nervous exhaustion over this Bill. It may be that the patience of the Lord Advocate has been tried over the last few weeks since he started to read the Bill. My colleague my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove has spent a long time on this Bill during the Recess, as everyone will appreciate from the way he has mastered it, and in the meantime we are prepared to agree to this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Procedures for making or confirming certain orders and schemes]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendments Nos. 148 to 152:
Page 95, line 20, after ("9") insert ("or 12")
line 31, after ("person") insert ("(other than himself or as the case may be themselves) ")
Page 96, line 39, leave out ("public utility") and insert ("statutory")
Page 97, line 32, after ("7") insert ("or 72(3)")
line 32, leave out ("that section or section 72(3) of this Act") and insert ("either of those sections")
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 148 and 151 correct omissions. Amendment No. 149 removes the possibility of a roads authority having to serve on itself copies of a proposed order. Amendment No. 150 changes the undefined term "public utility undertakers" to the term defined in the Bill, "statutory undertakers", and Amendment No. 152 is a minor improvement consequential on Amendment No. 151. These are all minor drafting amendments designed to clarify the provisions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 2 to 6 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 152A not moved.]
Schedule 7 [Penalties for offences]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 153:
[Printed earlier: col. 653.]
The noble and learned Lord said: I think I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendments Nos. 153A to 156E:
Page 108, line 10, at end insert—
("The Highway (Railway Crossings) Act 1839 (c. 45)
. In section 1 of the Highway (Railway Crossings) Act 1839
626
(duty of proprietors of railways to maintain gates where railway crosses highway)—

(a) for the words "any turnpike road or any highway or statute labour road for carts or carriages in Great Britain" there shall be substituted the words "the carriageway of a public road (within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984"; and

(b) for the words "turnpike or other road as aforesaid" and "turnpike or highway" there shall in each case be substituted the word" carriageway".

The Railway Regulation Act 1842 (c. 55)
. In section 9 of the Railway Regulation Act 1842 (gates at level crossing to be kept closed across road)—

(a) for the words "any turnpike road, or any other highway or statute labour road for carts or carriages, in Great Britain" there shall be substituted the words "the carriageway of a public road (within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984)"; and

(b) for the words "turnpike or other road" and "turnpike or other roads", wherever either expression occurs, there shall be substituted the word "carriageway".")

Page 111, line 18, at end insert—
("The Railway Clauses Act 1863 (c. 92)
.—(1) The Railway Clauses Act 1863 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 5 (restriction on shunting trains), for the words "a turnpike road or public carriage" there shall be substituted the words "the carriageway of a public".
(3) In each of sections 6 (erection of lodge at level crossing) and 7 (requirement for bridge instead of level crossing), for the words "turnpike road or public carriage" there shall be substituted the words "carriageway of a public".
(4) In section 16 (access to shore under or across railway)—

(a) after the word "footways" there shall be inserted the word", footpaths"; and

(b) after the word "footway", wherever it occurs, there shall be inserted the word ", footpath".")

Page 111, line 25, at end insert—
("The Explosives Act 1875 (c. 17)
.—(1) The Explosives Act 1875 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 22 (general rules for premises registered for the keeping of gunpowder), in each of subsections (1) and (2)(a), for the words "highway, street, public thoroughfare" there shall be substituted the word "road".
(3) In section 30 (restriction on sale of gunpowder), for the words "highway, street, public thoroughfare, or" there shall be substituted the words "road or in any".
(4) In section 80 (penalty for throwing fireworks in thoroughfare), for the words "highway, street, thoroughfare," there shall be substituted the word "road".
(5) In section 108 (interpretation), at the end there shall be added the following definition—
"The expression "road" has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.".")
Page 111, line 25, at end insert—
("The Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886 (c. 29)
In paragraph 9 of the Schedule to the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886, after the words "public road" there shall be inserted the words "(within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984".")
Page 111, line 30, at end insert—
("The Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1888 (c. 255)
. In section 16 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1888 (power to apportion expenses between railway company and applicants for works)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words "highway board, surveyor of highways acting with the consent of the vestry of his parish" there shall be substituted the words "or local road authority (within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act
1984)"; and

(b) subsection (3) shall cease to have effect.

"The Light Railways Act 1896 (c. 48)
. In section 7(1) of the Light Railways Act 1896 (application for authorising light railway) for the words "road authorities" there shall be substituted the words "local roads authorities (within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984".")
Page 111, line 41, at end insert—
("(4) In section 56(1)(a) (penalty on exposure of infected

627
persons), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road".
(5) In section 74 (rules as to underground dwellings), for the word "street", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road".")
Page 111, line 41, at end insert—
("The Congested Districts (Scotland) Act 1897 (c. 53)
. In section 10 of The Congested Districts (Scotland) Act 1897 (interpretation), at the end there shall be added the following definitions—
"The expressions "footpath" and "public road" have the same meanings as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.".")
Page 111, line 41, at end insert—
("The Dogs Act 1906 (c. 32)
. In section 3 of the Dogs Act 1906 (seizure of stray dogs)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road";

(b) in subsection (1A), for the words "a highway" there shall be substituted the words "in a road"; and

(c) after subsection (1A) there shall be added the following subsection—

"(1B) In subsections (1) and (1A) above "road" has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.".")
Page 111, line 41, at end insert—
("The Light Railways Act 1912 (c. 19)
. In section 6 of the Light Railways Act 1912 (amendment of section 24 of the Light Railways Act 1896)—

(a) for the words "road authorities" there shall be substituted the words "roads authority";

(b) the existing words, as amended by paragraph (a) above, shall be subsection (1) of the section; and

(c) after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(2) In subsection (1) above, "public road" and "local roads authority"; have the same meanings as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.".")
Page 112, line 2, at end insert—
("The Railways Act 1921 (c. 55)
. In section 73(3) of the Railways Act 1921 (interpretation), for the words "a public carriageway" there shall be substituted the words "the carriageway of a public road (within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984)".
The Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act 1928 (c. 44)
. In section 5(3) of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act 1928 (interpretation), in the definition of "light railway", for the words "public carriageway" there shall be substituted the words "the carriageway of a public road (within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984)".")
Page 112, line 16, at end insert—
("The Road and Rail Traffic Act 1933 (c. 53).
. In section 45 of the Road and Rail Traffic Act 1933 (interpretation)—
(a) after the word them:—" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"'Carriageway' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;";
(b) after the definition of "Minister" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"'Public road' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;"; and
(c) in the definition of "Railway", for the words "a public carriageway" there shall be substituted the words "the carriageway of a public road".").
Page 112, line 40, at end insert—
("The Coal Act 1938 (c. 52)
. In section 34(1)(c)of the Coal Act 1938 (saving for certain statutory rights), for the words "highway authority" there shall be substituted the words "local roads authority (within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984)".
The Civil Defence Act 1939 (c. 31)
. In section 90(1) of the Civil Defence Act 1939 (interpretation), in the definition of "public utility undertakers", for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".").
Page 113, line 2, at end insert—
("The Local Government Act 1948 (c. 26)
. In section 144(1) of the Local Government Act 1948 (interpretation), in the definition of "railway", for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".
The Civil Defence Act 1948 (12, 13 & 14 Geo. 6. c. 5)
. In section 4(2) of the Civil Defence Act 1948 (powers as to land), for the word "highway" in each of the three places where it occurs there shall be substituted the word "road".").
The noble and learned Lord said: These are amendments in Schedule 8 which make consequential amendments to a number of statutes. As the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, said, we have followed the principle of making the appropriate amendment to square with the structure of roads legislation proposed in this Bill to the individual Acts which form primary legislation. We have done a more general revision of the local and private legislation in the amendment I moved a while ago. One of the reasons for doing it individually in each of these statutes is to ensure that they are in accordance with the structure of roads legislation, as now modernised, to make it unnecessary for the users of this great variety of other legislation always to look at the roads legislation to see what the provisions are and, at the same time, to have these other provisions consistent with the scheme of the roads legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Now we come to Schedule 8. When we first saw this Bill we found 24 pages in this schedule. We are now adding another 24 more pages to the schedule. I am told by the Lord Advocate that we wanted to make sure that everything was covered. Could I ask him when his department started on this Bill? How many years ago? I think they probably started on this Bill, without my knowledge, when I was Secretary of State, and I stopped being Secretary of State in 1976. But between the publication of the Bill, its Second Reading and this stage, we are adding as many pages to it as we had before. It does not inspire one with confidence that before this Bill is finished in another place another few pages will be added and we are making this thing up as we go along.
I shall suggest seriously to the Government that because of the complications that have arisen in relation to this Bill, which is not a consolidation measure but covers Acts of Parliament from 1839—I think the last one mentioned in the Bill is the Civic Government Act that we dealt with a year ago, and we have lived quite happily with them; there has been no cause célèbre about a "street", "highway" or anything else—they should lose this whole Bill between here and the Commons.
I think it has been a complete waste of time. I do not think it makes very much sense to interfere when we do not need to interfere. We have got this business here—getting rid of the word "turnpike" and the word "highway". What are we going to call the Highway Code in future by the way? We are wiping "highway" out of all the legislation but all the behaviour on roads is going to be called the Highway Code. What was the legislation or the subordinate legislation that produced the Highway Code? If it is in subordinate legislation it is already out by virtue of the amendment that was moved last. Does it make any great sense? Has anybody been at a great loss in respect of "highway"?

629
I have heard the noble and learned Lord himself and my noble friend mentioning highways tonight. There ain't none!
This is quite unnecessary, and I am perfectly certain that already there will be other pages ready to go in at the next stage unless the Government are too embarrassed to put them in. I am sorry about this, but this is how I feel about it. I gave them the opportunity to think about it on the very first amendment that I moved on this Bill, when they took out the word "highway". Nobody is worried about this. Here we have been living quite happily with the 1839 Act and nobody has bothered at all. But now here we are making further changes in these ancient and not so ancient Acts. I am not going to object to them. If the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate wants this trawl—because they have been trawling through all the Acts to see what they have missed—then I am prepared to play along with them at this particular stage. But, quite frankly, I hope that somebody somewhere has another think about this. This is the responsibility of the Lord Advocate, because the draftsmen are his responsibility, but somebody in the Crown Office has had far too much time on his hands: that is all I can say.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: This Bill, so far as ministerial responsibility is concerned, is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland and I think the technical position is that my departmental responsibility is to provide the draftsmen, but provision for the drafting of a particular Bill is the responsibility of the Minister whose Bill it is. I say that only in view of the way the noble Lord put his point.
As he has said, the position is that much of the legislation in relation to roads in Scotland is extremely old and if a legal system is to be operating in modern conditions with all the difficulty of modern times, it is very important that the statutory provisions should be as concise and as well structured as possible. To attempt a consolidation of Acts passed over such a long period as that without making some effort to bring them into a consistent structure would be a great mistake, in my view. It is for that reason that this Bill has been brought forward.
As the noble Lord said, certain work in connection with it would have started when he was Secretary of State for Scotland, but that was in the nature of examining the old law to see how much of it should be retained and how it fitted together—because it had been added to at various stages over a long period—in order to see what the nature of the provisions should be.
The actual drafting is a more recent matter, and there is no point in starting to look through other legislation to see the effect on it until we have the roads Bill structure complete. These are in the nature of consequential drafting amendments, and I feel certain that the right thing to do is to put that structure, where relevant, into other Acts to avoid difficulty for the future. So I certainly feel very strongly that this is an important and necessary piece of legislation. I am glad that the noble Lord, during his tenure of office, was responsible for putting work in progress to lead to this fine result.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I can assure him that I never gave my consent to producing a Bill like this; and my recollection of trying to get legislation through was that one of the big hold-ups was the availability of draftsmen. It may well be that the Lord Advocate is so much more kindly disposed to every suggestion that comes from a Secretary of State that he makes draftsmen available for this kind of thing.
He can look as far as he likes but he will never find me responsible for a thing like this. This is not consolidation. If there had been consolidation, we should have had some guidance, it may well be from the Law Commission. After the Bill was produced we should have a special committee of Lords and Commons. I used to be a member of it hack in the late 1940s. We used to meet up here in a room in the House of Lords and I used to feel that I ought almost to take my shoes off and put on my slippers when I went into it. It was gone into very thoroughly to see that it was actually consolidation. But this is not consolidation; and I shall be glad if the noble and learned Lord can tell me truly that he thinks it is fair to any legislator to bring in a Bill like this. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who is the only one who has shown the slightest interest—though occasionally we have had the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and a few others on the Labour Benches taking part—and we really ought to have had every Act of Parliament from 1893 right through to 1980 in front of us if we were going to do the job properly.
This is being done first by the House of Lords and we claim that we do an essential service. It is no essential service to the country for us just to sit and say "Yea" to everything the Government produce in a Bill like this. I have spent hours on it and I do not think those hours have been usefully spent. I could have spent them on something much more important. I think it is an unnecessary Bill and I still think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate should examine the fact that he gave his consent to his draftsmen spending valuable time on a thing like this. It should not have been done, especially as they are so busy that they have to farm out Government Bills to private Members. We have got an education one coming along—filling the statute book with unimportant stuff when there is important stuff, certainly for Scotland, that requires to be done. I say in all sincerity that I think this Bill should be lost in the distance between the Lords and the Commons.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 114, line 7, after ("than") insert ("a substitute road made under section 71(1) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 or").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment makes an important change in the definition of "road" which will consequentially amend the definition of "street" in the Public Utility Street Works Act 1950. The arrangement here for a substitute road is the system by which a road may be in use while a new piece of road is being constructed. It is important that although that road is used as a road for a certain period the public utilities would not be able to put their apparatus in such a road because it is only going to be there for a temporary period. This amendment ensures

631
that the statutory undertakers cannot bring their apparatus on to a substitute road built under Clause 71. By definition, being a temporary road, such apparatus should not be there. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendments Nos. 157 A to 166A:
Page 126, line 22, at end insert—
("The Pet Animals Act 1951 (c. 35)
.—(1) The Pet Animals Act 1951 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 2 (pets not to be sold in streets or public places), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road".
(3) In section 7(3) (interpretation), after the definition of "pedigree animal" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"'road' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;"
Page 127, line 38, at end insert—
The Mines and Quarries Act 1954 (c. 70)
. In section 151(2) of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 (fencing of abandoned and disused mines and of quarries) in each of paragraphs (b)(ii) and (c)(ii), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the words "road (within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984)".
Page 127, line 38, at end insert—
("The Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955 (c. 21)
. In section 37(1) of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955 (interpretation), after the definition of "predecessors in the tenancy" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"'public road' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;".").
The Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957 (c. 59)
. In section 1(3)(i>) (election of alternative to executing remedial works in relation to subsidence damage), for the words "highway maintainable or repairable by the inhabitants at large or a highway in Scotland managed and maintained by the Secretary of State or by a regional or islands council" there shall be substituted the words "public road (within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984".").
Page 128, line 15, at end insert—
("The Opencast Coal Act 1958 (c. 69)
. In section 13 of the Opencast Coal Act 1958 (apparatus of statutory undertakers)—
(a) in subsection (4), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road";
(b) in subsection (5), for the words "highway" and "highways" there shall be substituted, respectively, the words "road" and "roads";
(c) after subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(5A) In subsections (4) and (5) above, "road" has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984."; and
(d) in subsection (6), the words "'highway' includes a public right of way;" shall cease to have effect.").
Page 128, line 15, at end insert—
("The Weeds Act 1959 (c. 54)
. In section 11(2) of the Weeds Act 1959 (interpretation), in the definition of "occupier—
(a) for the words "the authority by whom the road is being maintained" there shall be substituted the words "the roads authority ("public road" and "roads authority" having the same meanings as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1983)"; and
(b) at the end there shall be added the following proviso—
": Provided that this Act does not apply as regards a road for which the roads authority is the Secretary of State".").
Page 128, line 21, at end insert—
("The Weights and Measures Act 1963 (c. 31)
.—(1) The Weights and Measures Act 1963 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 21(2)(h) (requirement of document as to weight of vehicle and its load), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".
(3) In section 58(1) (interpretation), after the definition of "prescribed" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"'road' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;".
(4) In Schedule 6 (provisions as to solid fuel)—

(a) In each of paragraphs (3B)and (2), 3C(1) and 10, for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

(b) in paragraph 6A(1), for the word "highways" there shall be substituted the word "roads".

The Agriculture and Horticulture Act 1964 (c. 28)
. In each of sections 13(7) and 21(2)(a) of the Agriculture and Horticulture Act 1964 (reservation as regards powers of entry), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".").
Page 128, line 27, at end insert—
("The Agriculture Act 1967 (c. 22)
. In section 23(5) of the Agriculture Act 1967 (reservation as regards powers of entry), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".").
Page 131, line 19, at end insert—
("The Firearms Act 1968 (c. 27)
. In section 57(4) of the Firearms Act 1968 (interpretation), in the definition of "public place", for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the words "road (within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984."
The Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 (c. 47)
.—(1) The Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 3(1) and (2) (construction of public sewers and public sewage treatment works), for the word "street", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road".
(3) In section 12(7) (breaking open street in relation to connecting premises with public sewer etc.), for the word "street", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road".
(4) In section 41 (power to break open streets)—

(a) for the words "the carriageway and footways of any street and of any bridge carrying a street" there shall be substituted the words "any road, any bridge carrying a road,";

(b) for the words from "or vault" to "footway", where it first occurs, there shall be substituted the words ", vault, sewer, drain or tunnel in or under a road"; and

(c) for the words "carriageway or footwa", where they occur for the second time, there shall be substituted the word "road".

(5) In section 59(1) (interpretation)—
(a) after the definition of "river purification authority" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"'road' has the same meaning as in the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950;";
(b) the definition of "street" shall cease to have effect; and
(c) after the definition of "trade premises" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"'trunk road' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;".
The Transport Act 1968 (c73)
.—(1) The Transport Act 1968 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 116 (transfer of responsibility for maintenance of highways on bridges)—
(a) in subsection (3), for the word "highway" where it occurs for the first and fourth times there shall in each case be substituted the word "roads", and where it occurs for the second, third and fifth times there shall in each case be substituted the word "road";
(b) for subsections (4) and (5) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(4) Where paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of this section are not satisfied immediately before the appointed day in the case of any such bridge as is mentioned in that subsection, or such a bridge as aforesaid

633
is constructed after that day, then if on any subsequent day—

(a) the Board or Boards concerned are responsible for maintaining the road carried by the bridge, or that road together with the road giving access to the bridge (the "access road"); and

(b) the road at each end—

of the bridge; or

if the Board or Boards are also responsible for maintaining the access Road, of the bridge and the access road, is a public road,

the road (or roads) for which they are so responsible shall forthwith be entered by the local roads authority in the list of public roads kept by the authority under section 1 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.";
(c) in subsection (6)—

at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Without prejudice to the provisions of the said Act of 1984,"; and

for the word "highway" where it occurs for the first, third, fourth and fifth times there shall in each case be substituted the word "road", and where it occurs for the second time there shall be substituted the word "roads; and

(d) in subsection (7), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".
(3) In section 117 (duties as respects bridges carrying highways)—
(a) in subsection (1)(a), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road";
(b) in subsection (3)(b), for the words "when it is opened for traffic" there shall be substituted the words—
"—

when the bridge is opened (the date of opening being before 1st January 1985) for traffic on the highway so carried;

when the bridge is opened (the date of opening being on or after 1st January 1985) for traffic on the road so carried."; and

(c) in subsection (5), after the word "highway" there shall be inserted the words ", or as the case may be road,".
(4) In section 118(1) (duty of highway authority as respects road bridge over railway or inland waterway)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

(b) in paragraph (b), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads".

(5) In section 199(1) (ending of liability of certain Boards to make payments on being relieved of responsibility for bridges carrying trunk or special roads)—

(a) for the words "229 of the Highways Act 1959 or section 7 of the Trunk Roads Act 1946" there shall be substituted the words "266 of the Highways Act 1980 or section 77 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984";

(b) after the word "highways", in both places where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words ", or as the case may be roads,";

(c) for the words "230 of the said Act of 1959 or section 8 of the Special Roads Act 1949" there shall be substituted the words "267 of the said Act of 1980 or section 78 of the said Act of 1984";

(d) in paragraph (a), for the words "58(2) of the said Act of 1959, section 7(3) of the said Act of 1946 or section 8(2) of the said Act of 1949" there shall be substituted the words "55(2) of the said Act of 1980 or subsection (4) of the said section 77 (or that subsection as applied by subsection (2) of the said section 78)", and after the word "highway" there shall be inserted the words ", or as the case may be road,"; and

(e) in paragraph (b), for the words "229(3) or 230(2) of the said Act of 1959 or the said section 7(3) or 8(2)" there shall be substituted the words "266(5) or 267(2) of the said Act of 1980 or subsection (4) of the said section 77 (or that subsection applied as aforesaid).".

(6) In section 121(8) (interpretation), at the end there shall be added the words "; and in the application of the said subsection (5) to Scotland the reference to a highway authority shall be construed as a reference to a roads authority.".
(7) In section 122 (further provision as regards interpretation)—

(a) in subsections (1) and (3), for the word "highway", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

(b) subsection (4) shall cease to have effect.

(8) In section 123 (power of highway and other authorities to contribute to cost of barriers, etc., at level crossings), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads".
(9) In section 124(1)(a) (Railways Board's obligations at level crossings with roads other than public carriage roads) for the words "public carriage" there shall be substituted the words "carriageway of a public".
(10) In section 149 (application of road traffic enactments to Crown roads)—

(a) in subsection (2), in each of paragraphs (a) and (b) for the word "highway", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and

(b) in subsection (5)(b), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the words "public road".

(11) In section 159(1) (general interpretation)—
(a) after the definition of "bus service" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"'carriageway' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;";
(b) in the definition of "highway authority", paragraph (b) shall cease to have effect;
(c) after the definition of "liability" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"'local roads authority' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;";
(d) after the definition of "plated weight" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"'public road' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;"; and
(e) after the definition of "the Railways Board" there shall be inserted the following definitions—
"'road' and 'roads authority' have the same meanings as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;" ").
Page 131, line 24, at end insert—
("The Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Act 1972 (c. 27)
. In section 7(1) of the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Act 1972 (interpretation), for the definition of "road" there shall be substituted the following definition—
"'road' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.".")
Page 131, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) In section 14 (disregarding of representations with respect to development authorised by or under other enactments), in paragraph (a), for the words from "1 of" to" 1949" there shall be substituted the words "5, 7, 9, or 12 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984".
( ) In section 19(2) (certain operations or uses of land not to be taken to involve development)—

(a) in paragraph (b), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and

(b) in paragraph (c), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road".

( ) In section 136(2) (compensation not payable in respect of imposition of certain conditions), for the word "highway", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road".
( ) In section 181(1) (scope of certain provisions relating to blight notices)—
(a) for paragraph (e) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(e) is land on or adjacent to the line of a road proposed to be constructed, improved or altered, as indicated in an order or scheme—

which has come into operation under; or

which is proposed to be made or confirmed under, and in respect of which a notice has been published under Schedule 1 to the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, being land in relation to which a power of compulsory acquisition conferred by that Act may become exercisable as being land required for purposes of construction, improvement or alteration as indicated in the order or scheme; "; and

635
(b) in paragraph (f), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads"
( ) In section 194(2) (questions as to appropriate authority for purposes of certain provisions), in each of paragraphs (a) and (b), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads".
( ) In section 195 (interpretation)—
(a) in subsection (3), for the word "highway", in each place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and
(b) in subsection (4), for paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(aa) the coming into operation of any requisite scheme or order under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;".
( ) In section 198 (highways affected by development: orders by Secretary of State)—
(a) in subsection (1), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road";
(b) for subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(2) Any order under this section may make such provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient for the construction or improvement of any other road, and may direct that the other road so constructed or improved—

(a) shall be entered by the local roads authority in the list of public roads kept by them under section 1 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984; or

(b) shall be deemed for the purposes of that Act, to have been constructed by him under section 18 thereof,

and in the case of a road so deemed, that it shall, on such date as may be specified in the order, become a trunk road within the meaning of that Act.";
(c) in subsection (3)—

in paragraph (a), sub-paragraph (ii), and the word "or" immediately preceding that sub-paragraph, shall cease to have effect; and

in paragraph (b), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

(d) in each of subsections (4) and (5)(a), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".
( ) In section 198A (highways affected by development: orders by planning authorities)—
(a) in subsection (1)—

for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road";

in paragraph (a), for the words "section 50 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970" there shall be substituted the words "the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984"; and

in paragraph (b), for the words "section 1 of the Special Roads Act 1949" there shall be substituted the words "that Act";

(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) in paragraph (a), for the word "provision", where it occurs for the second time, there shall be substituted the word "construction", for the word "highway", where it first occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road", and for the words "any highway so provided or improved shall be maintained and managed by the highway authority" there shall be substituted the words "the other road so constructed or improved shall be entered by the local roads authority in the list of public roads kept by the local roads authority under section 1 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984"; and

(ii) in paragraph (b)(i), the words "sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of" shall cease to have effect;

(c) in each of subsections (3) and (4), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road"; and
(d) in subsection (5), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads".
( ) In section 201 (order extinguishing right to use vehicles on highway)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

for the word "highway", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

for the words "8 of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act 1909" there shall be substituted the words "3 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984";

(b) in subsection (2), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road";

636

(c) in subsection (3), for the word "highway"—

where it first occurs, there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and

where it occurs for the second time, there shall be substituted the word "road";

(d) in each of subsections (4), (5) and (8), for the word "highway", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road";

(e) in subsection (9)(b), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads";

(f) in subsection (10)—

(i) in paragraph (a), for the word "provision", where it occurs for the second time, there shall be substituted the word "construction", for the word "highway", where it first occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road", and for the words "any highway so provided or improved shall be maintained and managed by the highway authority" there shall be substituted the words "the other road so constructed or improved shall be entered by the local roads authority in the list of public roads kept by the local roads authority under section 1 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984"; and

(ii) in paragraph (b)(i), the words "sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of" shall cease to have effect; and

(g) in subsection (11)(a), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".

( ) In section 202 (provision of amenity for highway reserved to pedestrians)—

(a) in each of subsections (1) to (4), for the word "highway", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

(b) in subsection (5), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads".

( ) In section 204 (procedure for making of orders by Secretary of State), in each of subsections (2) and (7), for the word "highway" wherever it occurs there shall be substituted the word "road".
( ) In section 205A(1)(a) (further procedure in anticipation of planning permission, etc.), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word"
( ) In section 206(3)(aa) (provision as to time specified in certain orders), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".").
Page 131, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) In section 210A(2) (recovery of costs of making orders relating to roads paths, etc.)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for the word "highways" there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and

(b) in paragraph (d), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".

( ) In section 242(1) (contributions by local authorities towards certain expenses incurred by a local highway authority or the Secretary of State)—

(a) for the words from "the provisions" to "highways" there shall be substituted the words "section 5(9) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (power of local roads authority to contribute towards costs incurred by Secretary of State in construction or improvement of trunk road"; and

(b) for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads".

( ) In section 250(1) (expenses of, and borrowing by, local authorities), for the words "highway" and "highways" there shall in each case be substituted the word "roads".
( ) In section 275(1) (interpretation)—
(a) in the definition of "engineering operations", for the word "highways" there shall be substituted the word "roads".
(b) for the definition of "improvement" there shall be substituted the following definition—
"'improvement', in relation to a road, has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;";
(c) for the definition of "local highway authority" there shall be substituted the following definition—
"'local roads authority' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;";
(d) in the definition of "means of access", for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

637
(e) after the definition of "restriction on the winning and working of minerals" there shall be inserted the following definitions—
"'road and roads authority' have the same meanings as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;".")
Page 132, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) In section 65—
(a) subsection (1) shall cease to have effect; and
(b) in each of subsections (2) and (3), for the words "this section" there shall be substituted the words "section 181(1)(e)(ii) of the Act of 1972".")
Page 132, line 19, at end insert—
("The Control of Pollution Act 1974 (c. 40)
.—(1) The Control of Pollution Act 1974 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 13 (dustbins etc.)—

(a) in subsection (7)(c), for the word "highways" there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and

(b) in subsection (7A)—

(i) for the word "highway", where it first occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

(ii) in paragraph (a), for the words "relevant highway authority" there shall be substituted the words "roads authority".

(3) In section 27(1) (interference with refuse tips and dustbins etc.)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for the words "parish or community council" there shall be substituted the words "roads authority";

(b) in paragraph (b), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

(c) the words "or council" and from "In the application" to "1970" shall cease to have effect.

(4) In section 32(1)(c) (control of discharge of matter other than trade or sewage effluent)—

(a) for the words "works which a highway authority is obliged or entitled to keep open by virtue of section 10 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970" there shall be substituted the words "a drain which a roads authority is obliged or entitled to keep open by virtue of section 30 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984"; and

(b) for the word "highway", where it occurs for the third time, there shall be substituted the word "roads".

(5) In section 62 (noise in streets)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) for the word "street", where it first occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

(ii) the words from "In this subsection" to "public" shall cease to have effect; and

(b) in subsection (2)(e), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the words "public road (within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984)".

(6) In section 105(1) (interpretation), after the definition of "regulations" there shall be inserted the following definitions—
"'road' (except where the context otherwise requires) has the same meaning as in the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950;
'roads authority' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;".
(7) In section 106 (general application to Scotland), subsection (4) shall cease to have effect.").
Page 132, line 35, at end insert—
("The Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 (c. 66)
.—(1) The Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 28(2) (interpretation)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for the words "Special Roads Act 1949" there shall be substituted the words "Roads (Scotland) Act 1984"; and

(b) in paragraph (b), for the words "2 to that Act, as varied from time to time by any order under section 2" there shall be substituted the words "3 to that Act, as varied from time to time by any order under section 8".

(3) In section 139(1) (interpretation), in the definition of "hawking", for the words "the streets, highways" there shall be substituted the word "roads".
The Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 (c. 3)
.—(1) The Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 2(1)(a) (unauthorised dumping of motor vehicle etc.), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".
(3) In section 3 (removal of abandoned vehicles)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road";

(b) in subsection (3), the words "within the meaning of the Highways Act 1959" and "within the meaning of that Act" shall cease to have effect; and

(c) subsection (4) shall cease to have effect.

(4) In section 6(1) (removal and disposal of things other than motor vehicles), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".
(5) In section 11(1) (interpretation)—
(a) for the definition of "highway" there shall be substituted the following definition—
"'carriageway' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;"; and
(b) after the definition of "the relevant date" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"'road' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.".")
Page 132, line 43, at end insert—
("The Water (Scotland) Act 1980 (c. 45)
.—(1) The Water (Scotland) Act 1980 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 9(5) (powers of water authority as regards supply of water for non-domestic purposes), for the word "streets" there shall be substituted the word "roads".
(3) In section 10(5) (interpretation)—
(a) for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(b) roads authorities as defined in section 143(1) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;"; and
(b) for paragraph (d) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(d) road managers as defined in section 2(5) of the said Act of 1950;".
(4) In each of sections 13(5) (accelerated procedure for supply of water in bulk) and 22 (power to break open streets), for the word "streets" there shall be substituted the word "roads".
(5) In section 23 (power to lay mains etc.)—
(a) in subsection (1)—
(i) in paragraph (a), for the word "street" where it occurs for the first and second times there shall in each case be substituted the word "road" and for the words from "the persons" to "street" where it occurs for the third time there shall be substituted the words—
"—
(i) where the road is a public road, the roads authority: and
(ii) in any other case, the authority or person responsible for the maintenance of the road, or, if no authority or person is so responsible, to the owners of the solum of the road,"; and
(ii) in paragraph (b), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road"; and
(b) in subsection (2), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road".
(6) In section 24 (communication and supply pipes), in each of subsections (1) and (4) for the word "street", there shall be substituted the word "road".
(7) In section 25(2) (power of islands or district council to erect and maintain drinking fountain or trough)—

(a) for the word "street", where it first occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

(b) for the words from "if" to "authority" where it occurs for the second time there shall be substituted the words "there shall be no such erection by the district council without the roads authority's consent".

(8) In section 33 (temporary discharge of water into watercourse)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the word "street", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road" and for the word "streets" there shall be substituted the word "roads";

(b) in subsection (2), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

639

(c) in subsection (10), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the words "public road".

(9) In section 75(2)(b) (saving as regards penalty for polluting water), for the words "highway, so long as the highway" there shall be substituted the words "public road, so long as the roads".
(10) In section 76(3) (carrying of drain etc. under, across or along any street)—

(a) for the word "highway", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "roads";

(b) for the words "street", where it first occurs, and "streets" there shall be substituted respectively, the words "road" and "roads"; and

(c) for the words "street maintainable at the public expense"there shall be substituted the words "public road".

(11) In section 77(3)(c) (application of order relating to obtaining supplies of water to meet drought), for the word "streets" there shall be substituted the word "roads".
(12) In section 109 (interpretation)—
(a) in subsection (1)—
(i) the definition of "bridge authority" shall cease to have effect;
(ii) in the definition of "communication pipe", for the word "street", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road";
(iii) the definitions of "highway" and "highway authority" shall cease to have effect;
(iv) after the definition of "prescribed" there shall be inserted the following definitions—
'"private road" and "public road" have the same meanings as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;';
(v) after the definition of "river purification authority" there shall be inserted the following definitions—
'"road" has the same meaning as in the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950;
"roads authority" has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;'; and
(vi) the definition of "street" shall cease to have effect; and
(b) subsection (2) shall cease to have effect.
(13) In section 110 (further provisions as to communication pipes), in each of subsections (1) and (2), for the word "street", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road".
(14) in Schedule 3 (provisions as to breaking open streets and laying communication and supply pipes)—
(a) in paragraph 1—

for the words "the roadway and footpaths of any street and of any bridge carrying a street" there shall be substituted the words "a road";

for the word "street" where it occurs for the third time there shall be substituted the wood "road"; and

for the words "roadway or footpath", in both places where they occur, there shall be substituted the word "road";

(b) in paragraph 2—

in sub-paragraph (1), for the words "the roadway or footpath of a street or bridge (not being a street or bridge maintainable at the public expense) which is" there shall be substituted the words "a private road"; and

in sub-paragraph (2), for the words "the roadway or footpath of any length of street" there shall be substituted the words "any length of road";

(c) paragraph 3 shall cease to have effect;
(d) in paragraph 4—
(i) in sub-paragraph (1), for the word "street" where it occurs for the first and second times there shall in each case be substituted the word "road" and in the proviso, for the words "the persons having control or management of the street" there shall be substituted the words—
"—
(i) where the road is a public road, the roads authority; and
(ii) in any other case, the authority or person responsible for the maintenance of the road, or, if no authority or person is so responsible, to the owners of the solum of the road";
(ii) in sub-paragraph (2), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road";
(e) in each of paragraphs 5, 6(1), 7(2) and (8) for the word "street", wherever it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road"; and
640
(f) in paragraph 9, in the proviso to sub-paragraph (2)—

(i) for the word "street", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

(ii) for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads".

(15) In Schedule 4 (provisions to be included in orders relating to water undertakings)—
(a) in paragraph 2 for the word "street", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road";
(b) in paragraph 5—
(i) in sub-paragraph (1)—
for the word "street", in both places where it occurs there shall be substituted the word "road" and for the word "streets" there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and
in the proviso, for the words from "—(a)" to the end of head (b) there shall be substituted the following words—
"in, on or over—

(a) any public road except with the consent of the roads authority;

(b) any other road or other land or, without prejudice to head (a) above, any public road for which the roads authority is the Secretary of State, except with the consent of the regional or islands council within whose area the road or other land is;"; and

(ii) in sub-paragraph (2)—
for the words "council or a highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and for the word "street" in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "road";
(c) in paragraph 22, for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road";
(d) in paragraph 24—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1), for the word "streets" there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and

(b) in sub-paragraph (2), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "roads".

(e) in paragraph 36, for the word "streets", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "roads" and for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road"; and
(f) in paragraph 39—
(i) in the proviso to sub-paragraph (1), for the words "to the persons having the control or management of the street or other place where they propose to open the ground, and" there shall be substituted the following words—
—(a) where the ground is, or comprehends, part of—

a public road, to the roads authority; or

any other road, to the person responsible for the maintenance of that road, or, if no authority or person is so responsible, to the owners of the solum of that part; and

(b) where or in so far as the ground is not mentioned in head (a) above, to the person having the control or management of the ground;
and the undertakers";
and for the word "streets" there shall be substituted the word "roads"; and
(ii) in sub-paragraph (2), for the word "street" there shall be substituted the word "road".")
Page 134, line 9, at end insert—
("The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (c. 45)
.—(1) The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 19(5) (restriction on power to appoint taxi stance)—

(a) for the words "highway authority (within the meaning of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970)" there shall be substituted the words "roads authority";

(b) for the word "highway", where it occurs for the second time, there shall be substituted the word "road"; and

(c) the words "being a highway" shall cease to have effect.

(3) In section 48(4) (interpretation of provisions relating to fouling of pavements by dogs), for the words "meanings respectively assigned to them by section 50(1) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970" there shall be substituted the words "same meanings as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984".
(4) In section 54(3)(e) (non-application of provisions relating to annoyance caused by playing musical instruments etc.), for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".
(5) In the proviso to section 96(1) (restriction on exercise of certain powers as rega3rds statutes and monuments), for head (ii) there shall be substituted the following head—
"(ii) where such land is a road, the roads authority,".
(6) In section 125(1) (interference with dustbins etc.) for the word "highway" there shall be substituted the word "road".
(7) In section 128(2) (control of stray dogs), for the word "highways" there shall be substituted the words "in roads".
(8) In section 133 (interpretation), after the definition of "public place" there shall be inserted the following definitions—
"'public road', 'road' and 'roads authority' have the same meanings as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;".")
Page 134, line 19, at end insert—
("The Level Crossings Act 1983 (c. 16)
. In section 1(11) of the Level Crossings Act 1983, for the definition of "road" there shall be substituted the following definition—
"'road' has the same meaning as in the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984;".")
The noble and learned Lord said: These amendments are explained in the same way as the previous bloc. These are consequential amendments to a number of statutes consequent upon the new arrangements and the new structure of road legislation in this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Here we have not only a highways Bill, but a streets Bill as well. Is it contended that people will more readily understand and be more legally satisfied with the fact that you can sell pets in roads rather than in streets? Where are they usually sold? Ask anybody and off the cuff he will say "in the the streets". But the word "street" has gone. It is now a dirty word. It is like "highway" and "turnpike". It is such nonsense. I now come to Amendment No. 159, which is part of this group that is moved en bloc. Am I right in thinking that there is a new power in paragraph (b) and that it is not, as the noble and learned Lord said, bringing something up to date? Am I right in thinking that this is a new power?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I think not. What is being done in Amendment No. 159 is to adapt the provisions of the Weeds Act 1959, so that they conform with the principles which are set out in respect of the subordinate legislation in the amendment which I moved earlier. As I understand it and as I explained, that is all that is happening.
Lord Ross of Marnock: As I understand it, it applies to the Secretary of State as the roads authority, though previously it did not apply to the Secretary of State; and, of course, the Secretary of State has always been a roads authority in respect of special roads. So I think that this is a new power. I am not prepared to argue whether or not he should have it. I think that he should have it, provided I know what the Weeds Act does. But I do not think anybody in this House will be able to tell us what the Weeds Act 1959 really does. This is the nonsense of this Bill. This matter should not be dealt with in the this way in a Committee of the Whole House. This should have gone to some special committee of two or three people, who could have gone over anything that was done. But I am not objecting. There are a few other points which I could
642
make, but there is no point in making them. The process is a farce.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Schedule 8, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Ross of Marnock: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could tell us exactly why the words "highway" and "road" have been left in, and given a special definition under the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950? We have not got rid of "road" here, where elsewhere we have. The same is true in respect of some other words. We deliberately leave in the word "highway" in respect of Section 117 of the Transport Act 1968.
There is one other question that I want to ask about this schedule. Many of these Acts are United Kingdom Acts. Does that mean that we shall have one definition of "road" in respect of England and Wales, and another definition for Scotland? In other words, will the word "street" remain for England and Wales, but be changed to "road" for Scotland? There is an indication of that happening in Amendment No. 161A:
"(5) to Scotland the reference to a highway authority shall be construed as a reference to a roads authority."
Does that mean that in England it is still a highway authority, and that in England there will still be a reference to turnpike roads and even to streets, but not in Scotland? All this is for the better understanding of roads legislation! It really is asking us to accept far too much. But the question I want to ask is in respect of United Kingdom legislation which we are amending here. What happens to the English part of the legislation?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The situation is that, so far as the English part of the legislation is concerned, it is consistent with the structure of the English system of legislation in relation to roads or highways. The Scottish legislation, and the parts affecting Scotland in United Kingdom legislation, will be consistent with the Scottish system when these amendments are made. We have tried to be consistent throughout in that. So far as the Public Utilities Street Works Act is concerned, the provisions there are adapted for both jurisdictions and are, in my view, adapted appropriately.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I expect that they will be adapted appropriately, but they have not been explained. The answer to my question is, yes. There will still be highways in England but not in Scotland, because the Scottish lawyers have had a great deal of trouble, worry and concern over the presence of the word "highway", but there has been no such trouble in England. I cannot understand the difficulties into which Scottish lawyers have got, as compared with their English counterparts. But I will not quarrel with it. I am still trying to demonstrate the nonsense of this whole business.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Certain special roads to be trunk roads]:
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendments Nos. 166B to 173:
Page 136, line 21, at end insert—

("51 & 52 Vict. c. 25.

The Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1888.

Section 16(3).")

Page 136, column 3, leave out lines 35 and 36.
Page 137, line 45, at end insert—

("6 & 7 Eliz. 2. c. 69.

The Opencast Coal Act 1958.

In section 13(6), the words "'highway' includes a public right of way;".")

Page 137, line 53, at end insert—

("10 & 11 Eliz. 2. c. 58.

The Pipe-lines Act 1962.

In section 66(1), the definition of 'carriageway'.")

Page 138, line 14, at end insert—

("1968 c. 47.

The Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968.

In section 59(1), the definition of 'street'.")

Page 138, line 15, column 3, at beginning insert—
("In section 119(1)(a), the word "repair".
Section 121(6) and (7).
Section 122(4).")
Page 138, line 15, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 159(1), in the definition of "highway authority", paragraph (b).")
Page 138, line 27, column 3, at beginning insert—
("Sub-paragraph (ii) of section 198(3)(a) and the word "or" immediately preceding that sub-paragraph.
In section 198A(2)(b)(i), the words "sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of".")
Page 138, line 27, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 201(10)(b)(i), the words "sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of.")
Page 138, line 55, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 232(3), in paragraph (a) the words "under section 200 by the Secretary of State," and ",200,"; and in paragraph (b) the words "under section 200 by a highway authority,".
In section 236(1), the words "200,".")
Page 138, line 58, column 3, at end insert—
("In Schedule 20, paragraph 3.")
Page 139, line 6, column 3, at end insert—
("Section 65(1).")
Page 139, line 9, at end insert—

("1974 c. 40.

The Control of Pollution Act 1974.

In section 27(1), the words "or council"; and from "In the application" to "1970".")

Page 139, line 10, column 3, leave out ("Section 14(1)(a).") and insert ("In section 14(1), paragraph (a) and the words "local highway authority," where they occur other than in that paragraph.")
Page 139, line 11, at end insert—

("1978 c. 3.

The Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978.

In section 3, in subsection (3) the words "within the meaning of the Highways Act 1959" and "within the meaning of that Act"; and subsection (4).").

Page 139, line 11, at end insert—

("1980 c. 45.

The Water(Scotland)1980.

In section 109, in subsection (1), the definition of bridge authority", "highway", "highway authority" and "street"; and subsection (2). In Schedule 3, paragraph 3.").

Page 129, line 19, at end insert—

("1982 c. 45.

The Civil Government (Scotland) Act 1982

In section 13(6), the words "(within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1972)".

In section 19(5), the words "being a highway".

In section 97, the words "street or" and "to which the public have access".").

The noble and learned Lord said: I would ask leave to move these amendments to Schedule 10 en bloc. They make minor repeals of provisions which will be rendered unnecessary or inappropriate by the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am not going to object. It becomes so crazy with this Bill and it is pointless. I even passed over a mis-spelling of the word "structure". I did not want to draw anyone's attention to it, but it was spelled without a "t". I shall give the noble and learned Lord the reference, but I really thought that it was some new term that had been introduced by the Scottish Office, and who am I to question even the spelling of the Scottish Office as interpreted by the printers? But may we have a promise that there will be no further amendment of this schedule at the next stage of the Bill?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I am sure that the noble Lord would not like me to put myself in a position where I could not get the Bill, on leaving this House to go on its journey to the other place, as perfect as it is possible for us to make it. Apart from anything else, the noble Lord has put to me some points which we shall have to consider in relation to further amendments, and I feel certain that the noble Lord, with his great interest in and regard for the Scottish system, would like the Bill, now that it has gone thus far, to be as perfect as possible when it leaves here.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I was referring not to the points which I raised during the course of the Bill but to the changes which have been made to this schedule, which spring from the additions which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is to make to Schedule 8. It must be a record to have 24 more pages added to a schedule. It will run to over 50 pages, depending upon how the printer prints the schedule. No doubt the printer will be instructed to print it closely, so that my suggestion is not brought to fruition. Can the Lord Advocate tell me whether any more additions will be made to Schedule 8 which will necessitate further amendments to Schedule 9 at the next stage of the Bill?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: As I have already said, I have no doubt that the noble Lord would like the Bill to be as perfect as possible. If it appears as our work continues that the Bill would be made more perfect by further amendments, I am sure that the noble Lord would wish me to come forward with them. I am not

645
very good at prophecy. I do not know that I ought to endeavour to make any prophecies at this stage about what will happen at the next stage of the Bill. However, perhaps I may take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and to my noble friends Lord Selkirk, Lord Drumalbyn and Lord Stodart of Leaston for the interest they have taken in the Committee stage of the Bill and for the help they have given in making the Bill as perfect as it is now.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.
House adjourned at three minutes past nine o'clock.